Eat that GW believers!

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Luzr
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:23 pm

Post by Luzr »

Josh Cryer wrote: Watch this guys YouTube channel, you really are misled a lot of the time. I'd be more concerned about the oil, gas, and coal lobbies than the... windmill lobby. :lol:
BTW, why do you think cap&trade is against oil/gas/coal lobbies interests? After all, they will still sell the same amount of fossil fuels, just at higher prices.

Also, what about nuclear lobby? Not that I am against nuclear, but obviously, there are big money in the lobby and CO2 taxes are in the best interests of nuclear, are not they?

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Re: Troo believers

Post by alexjrgreen »

Brian H wrote:That's OK, Josh, go right on insisting that they're all Men of Good Will, with no axes to grind or huge vested interests and financial stakes to protect. We'll understand. 8) :lol:
There are axes to grind, huge vested interests and financial stakes to protect on both sides of the argument.
Ars artis est celare artem.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

Luzr, hmm, Mann was the first to construct a global temperature map going back centuries to before the MWP. Before Mann did his research MWP was thought to be global but was found to be local. Now, the *same methodology* that was used to determine the European MWP temperatures was used, by Mann and others, across the globe. Remember, we didn't have thermometers back then!

Either you say that the *original* EU-centric data was wrong and so too was the methodology, or you accept it as a whole. There was no global temperature map using this methodology before Mann so to say that "MWP was thought to be warmer" is a misnomer. The MWP in EU may have been warmer, but the globe wasn't represented by EU alone.

Also, yeah, Hansen is pissed about cap & trade because it's not going to actually reduce emissions. However, if there was something like fee and dividend or if we actually took climate change seriously, then they'd have something to worry about. So muddling the waters is their best course of action, just to keep doubt in the masses. As that link I posted pointed out, the "climategate" affair will be used next year when Congress gets together to talk about climate change and lowering emissions.

I wouldn't worry about the world falling apart because of emissions reductions, China and India aren't doing it, therefore there's no chance in hell the US will do it (and Europe is just installing more natural gas to handle the baseload inadequacies of wind, much to the delight of the Russians, their aggregate emissions are not predicted to drop).

I myself just sit back and watch the data come in, knowing there's no political will to do anything about it. That's one thing that attracted me to Polywell, because it's something that, if it works, can easily and quickly overtake coal and fossil fuels as the cheapest form of energy. Oh, and it's reliable, too, and wouldn't require millions of miles of new transmission lines (not exaggerating; wind farms around the world would need a completely different transmission infrastructure).

(About nuclear, India and China are building nuclear, but coal remains cheaper, so that's the route they're taking. It would be nice if they got their act together and just started building nuclear plants in a mass manufacture sort of way, at least then they could snub their noses at the US and make a pretty significant political gesture.)

BTW, I know Wikipedia is not usually a trusted source by skeptics, but this link lists the most common models: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_ ... arison.png

Mann isn't the end all!
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.

Luzr
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:23 pm

Post by Luzr »

Josh Cryer wrote:Luzr, hmm, Mann was the first to construct a global temperature map going back centuries to before the MWP. Before Mann did his research MWP was thought to be global but was found to be local.

The MWP in EU may have been warmer, but the globe wasn't represented by EU alone.
BTW, I know Wikipedia is not usually a trusted source by skeptics, but this link lists the most common models: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_ ... arison.png

Mann isn't the end all!
He definitely is not. If you look at the wiki graph for a minute or so, you can clearly see how more recent reconstructions diverge from Mann and Briffa, recreating both MWP and LIA. Sometimes the divergence is more than 0.8 degree.

Of course, MWP is still cooler than current warming period, but taking into account that proxy data of the past are smoothed, it would only take a short cooling trend to match things.

Interestingly, we can agree about most of issues - I do believe that clima is currently warming, I do believe that some of that has human cause, I do believe CO2 is greenhouse gas etc, etc.

I also do not think that cap&trade will bancrupt the world, at the same time I do not think that it will do anything to CO2 levels.

At the same time, I do believe that climatic sensitivity to CO2 is overshoot - that might be about the only difference that makes me "denier". I also do not believe to doom predictions.

My bet is that at the end of century, CO2 will be around 700 and global temperatures 1.5 degree higher. And the overal impact will be virtually zero (minus cap&trade, but that will get absorbed just like any other taxes).

Jccarlton
Posts: 1747
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Southern Ct

Post by Jccarlton »

Obama, the watermelons and what they want to do to the economy:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/ ... xists.html

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Bad post. Deleted for author stupidity.
Last edited by seedload on Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Josh Cryer wrote:BTW, I know Wikipedia is not usually a trusted source by skeptics, but this link lists the most common models: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_ ... arison.png

Mann isn't the end all!
Those are not models, they are reconstructions. Define most common? Most common referenced? Most common cherry picked? What the IPCC considers to have the most in common with its aggenda? Most common to each other?

Are there other reconstructions that still show a MWP? Come on. Be honest.

In your comments about the MWP being determined to be local, what paper are you referencing? Mann's latest?

EDIT - this page is fun.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/M ... eriod.html

Luzr
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:23 pm

Post by Luzr »

Josh Cryer wrote: Also, yeah, Hansen is pissed about cap & trade because it's not going to actually reduce emissions. However, if there was something like fee and dividend or if we actually took climate change seriously, then they'd have something to worry about.
I think that cap&trade might in fact increase coal industry profits. They will just implement CO2 sequestration and charge more.

Now how stupid all of this is if any of cause-effect chain elements is wrong?

E.g. what if it is actually methane? Or NO2? Or land use? Or natural variability? Mind you, models might be able to detect "AGW" signal, but CO2 is only one of possible causes.

Sceptics are accused to be funny by attacking all elements of theory:

- it is warming
- warming is unprecedented
- warming can only be explained by CO2
- CO2 is increasing because of human activity
- warming is dangerous
- we can reduce CO2 and prevent warming

But the truth is, if any single of these elements is not true, abandoning fossil fuels is nonsense.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

Luzr, I personally think we have a decent handle on CO2 sensitivity, I think that's the only part where we disagree. The models are excruciatingly complex and must get more complex as time goes on (to account for regional geological features for each part of the globe). But there's a reason that CO2 (and water vapor) sensitivity has such a range of uncertainty. We still don't know. All we know is that it does cause warming to some measurable extent, that we know for absolute certain. Science is good at knowing one thing well, but not knowing everything perfectly.

Whether or not that means doom or not, I dunno. I do know that the East Antarctic ice sheet was thought to be stable until well past 2.0C, but it's melting like crazy already. The West is melting like crazy likewise. Greenland, too. Things that the IPCC failed to predict (Hansen predicted it but he goes ignored).

From my POV the worst thing that can come of it is sea level rise. Displacing the southern USA is not something that is going to be very pretty. But I believe we'll be able to handle it, so I'm not too worried.

1.5 degrees higher assumes that the measured results that we have so far don't coincide with future CO2 warming, that basically, once we hit 450 ppm it'll stop the feedback. I don't believe that is possible. Basic logic says "more greenhouse gas = more heat trapping." Actually, that's just redundant. Even if you assumed that any new CO2 put into the atmosphere produced no more warming whatsoever, the ice caps are melting, and by the end of the century they will have changed the albedo of the planet enough to bring us to 2.0C.

I advocate moving to zero carbon as soon as possible, but even surrounded by *liberal progressives* I am derided over "political realities" and such. So I accept that it's not happening, so no one has anything to worry about as far as short term economics is concerned. If you look at the actual data and the changes being made to the bioshere, well, that's just something we'll probably wind up disagreeing upon.

From my POV most of the policymakers know that they'll be dead if/when the effects start happening on a wide scale, so they don't give a crap.


Jccarlton, loved the racist insinuations from that article.


seedload, do you have other reconstructions you'd prefer to share?

By "MWP was not warmer than now" I meant that the assumptions that were made about MWP "being warmer than now" were based on a flawed understanding of the data. We know the Vikings were roaming around at that point, so we assumed "it must have been much warmer." But when you look at the proxy data, it obviously is not, in all the models, "warmer than now." greenman on YouTube illustrates how the obfuscation lobby likes to manipulate the facts and pretend that MWP = warmer than now. MWP from Lamb's data was EU-centric, and did not represent the global temperature measurements, Mann wrote a global map, and MWP was shown to be not as strong as was thought. Watch the video (to others who doubt, too).
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.

jmc
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:16 am
Location: Ireland

Post by jmc »

MSimon wrote:
It's not proxy data. It's a direct measurement of CO2 levels in air trapped in bubbles in the ice.
Bubbles in ice have their problems. CO2 drifts in ice. That could lead to low and uniform CO2 levels in older ice.

Which makes the CO2 in the ice a proxy for the actual CO2 levels.
I find it interesting that you are criticising the chronological precision of our CO2 meassurements in the past, while at the same time insisting that we can be certain beyond a shaddow of a doubt from ice core data that the CO2 lags the temperature by 200 years over records that stretch back hundreds of thousands of years.

Luzr
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:23 pm

Post by Luzr »

Josh Cryer wrote:I don't believe that is possible. Basic logic says "more greenhouse gas = more heat trapping."
Such basic logic is IMO at odds with physical background.

First of all, CO2 does not really "trap" heat. It only reflects some IR wavelengths back to the earth. It cannot reflect back more than is coming from the ground. So there has to be a limit to direct CO2 forcing.

I believe that both "deniers" and honest climate scientest agree that CO2 direct forcing is logarithmic. (Do YOU agree? :) As long as CO2 levels do not seem to rise exponentially, direct forcing should slow down.

Of course, then we have the dreaded climate sensitivity...

Luzr
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:23 pm

Post by Luzr »

Josh Cryer wrote:Luzr, I personally think we have a decent handle on CO2 sensitivity, I think that's the only part where we disagree. The models are excruciatingly complex and must get more complex as time goes on (to account for regional geological features for each part of the globe). But there's a reason that CO2 (and water vapor) sensitivity has such a range of uncertainty.
Well, I might be naive, but can you please show me what is wrong with this article:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/12/ ... atter.html

especially the part about observed past climate sensitivity?

You know, comparing preindustrial and current CO2 levels (280->380) and observed temperature rise of 0.6 degree for the same period...

(EDIT: It might be 0.7 degree according to IPCC, but that does not seem to change the point).

KitemanSA
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

A co-worker sent me an email containing this. Happy reading.
The inconvenient science: Twenty talking points about global warming

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_inc ... cience.pdf

By Art Horn, Icecap

1. Surface temperature records show that global temperature fell from 1875 to 1910. Temperature rose from 1911 to 1943. Temperature fell again from 1944 to 1976. Temperature rose from 1977 to 1998. There has been no warming since 1998. We are now in the 8th year of cooling. While all these changes were happening carbon dioxide levels did nothing but go up.

2. There are 5 major centers that collect global temperature data, The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, Remote sensing systems, The University of Alabama Huntsville, The Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Nation Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. All of these centers show no warming since 1998 and all show cooling to varying degrees for the last 8 years.

3. Using surface temperature records to track global temperature change has numerous problems. The number of worldwide climate measuring sites has dropped from 6,000 in 1970 to under 2,000 today. Two thirds of the weather stations that were closed in this period were in the country. They had the colder night time temperatures. They are gone. What we are left with is a high percentage of urban weather stations with warmer night time readings due to pavement, buildings and general urban sprawl. This fact alone biases the temperature record warmer as the urban areas have grown around the world in the last 50 years. Several studies indicate that perhaps half the warming in the data base in the last 50 years is due to these land use changes. So while there has been warming the magnitude of it has been artificially magnified. That in itself is the real man made (made up) global warming.

4. NASA said that in the summer of 2009 the oceans were warmer than ever before. This was accomplished by subtracting the satellite measured ocean temperatures from the ocean temperature data base. NASA also does not use the 3307 ARGO buoys deployed in the world oceans because they show ocean heat content has been falling since the buoys were deployed in 2003.

5. There is no statistical relationship between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and temperature during the last 150 years. There is a strong statistical relationship between the cyclic Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and global temperature. The PDO is a 60 year cycle of warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean. In every instance over the last 150 years when the PDO was in the cool phase the global temperature went down. When the PDO was in the warm phase the temperature went up. The PDO has shifted back to cool and the air temperature is falling again.

6. The total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 3.8 one hundredth of a percent. The total increase by volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the last 150 years is one hundredth of a percent. This increase has benefited agriculture, trees, flowers and other plants. They grow faster with more carbon dioxide and are more resistant to drought.

7. Carbon dioxide is not pollution. Everything that grows on earth needs it. The source is irrelevant. Remove all the carbon dioxide from the air and the earth dies.

8. There are many large organizations including but not limited to Governments, Wall Street brokerage houses, environmental groups, corporations, universities, media outlets and political parties that have a strong financial interest in having you believe carbon dioxide is pollution. The saying "follow the money"

9. Ice cores show that increases in carbon dioxide in the past were the result of warmer temperature, not the cause of it. The laws of nature have not changed. Most of the increases in carbon dioxide in the air are the result of nature. The human component is very small, on the order of 3 percent per year. Half the carbon dioxide emitted into the air by human activity each year is immediately absorbed into the biosphere. Carbon dioxide is 3.5 percent of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is 95 percent. Since human activity only adds 3 percent a year and half of that is absorbed into the biosphere the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect each year is about one tenth of one percent. Reducing this amount by some fraction will have no effect on temperature.

10. There is a strong relationship between the strength of the solar wind and global temperature. Strong solar wind equals a warmer earth, weak solar wind equals a cooler earth. Variations in cosmogenic isotopes of carbon 14 and beryllium 10 in ice cores prove this. Right now the solar wind is weaker than anytime that NASA has been able to measure it, nearly 50 years and the earth is cooling. The solar magnetic index (AP) is the lowest since measurements began in 1932 and it's continuing to go down. The Pacific Ocean is in it's cool phase and will be for another 25 years. The Atlantic is showing signs of cooling. The sun is weak and will likely be so for the next two solar cycles. We are heading for colder temperatures, not warmer.

11. The cyclic downward trend in the amount of ice left in the Arctic at the end of the summer has ended. The ice data from polar orbiting satellites clearly shows the extent of arctic ice is increasing. There is today 25 percent more ice than 2 years ago.

12. In the 1960s there were an estimated 5,000 polar bears, today there are 25,000. In a typical biased story in April of this year TIME magazine reported there were "only" 25,000 left. Once again this story had major input from environmental groups.

13. Satellite measurements show there is more ice in Antarctic than 30 years ago. News media reports only talk about shrinking ice in the Arctic, never about growing ice in Antarctica. They are selling fear. The reporters and news anchors know nothing about climatology. I this because I worked with them for 25 years.

14. The melting of glaciers is not new. The "Little Ice Age" was from 1400 to 1850. The coldest temperatures were in the 1600s. Global temperature has been rising unevenly for 300 years. Glaciers have been retreating unevenly for at least 250 years.

15. Computer models say that there should be a rapid warming of the upper troposphere between 30 degrees north and south of the equator if global warming is proceeding as they predict. Measurements with weather balloons over the last 50 years so no such warming at all. This proves the computer models do not understand how the climate system works. These models can't predict the climate 50 to 100 years in the future. Computer model forecasts of warming are not evidence of climate change. They are marketing tools for research institutions and universities to continue their funding from our government.

16. Data from the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite show outgoing longwave radiation (heat) increased by 4 watts per square meter in the 1980s and 1990s while the oceans were undergoing a cyclic warming. Computer models predicted outgoing longwave radiation would decrease as oceans warmed. All the models used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were wrong. This means the models make the wrong assumptions about how the climate works and are useless in making any climate policy.

17. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in the late 1980s to prove human burning of fossil fuels causes global warming. From the beginning it was never a scientific organization. It was formed with a biased political agenda. Their true goal is to capture power through climate treaties partly to insure the institutions own survival. These treaties give the UN the legal power to redistribute the developed nations wealth as they see fit. They will use the concept of "climate debt" owed to third world countries as justification. The debt will be retribution for the industrialized nations sin of "polluting" the climate with carbon dioxide and using all the available carbon space in the air. It is the UN's goal to use global warming to extract money from developed nations without having to work for it. Recently the chairman of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri announced "We're at a stage where the warming is happening at a much faster rate." Apparently he doe
not look at real world data.

18. Large environmental groups, political "leaders" and eco-activists believe the climate system is so simple that it behaves like a room in your house. Simply turn down the thermostat or in other words reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and we can regulate the world temperature. People who think this way are far more dangerous than any global warming because some of these people are in power.

19. As for Al Gore...He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. His message of fearing global warming has reached the third world. The nations of the third world are now demanding "climate reparations" for damage the western world has inflicted on the climate system over the last 150 years. They now say we owe them "climate Debt" because we have used up all the carbon space in the air. This is not promoting peace, it is causing more tension and anger in the developing countries towards the west. Gore's "peace prize" is having the opposite effect. As for Gore's financial investments in "green companies" I say "beware of the prophet seeking profits". The urge to save the world is always a cover for the need to rule it.

20. The "climategate" emails prove that there is at best blind ambition among some of the worlds leading climate scientists and at worst criminal activity. The reaction of much of the mainstream media in the United States is proving to be very revealing. They either don't report the story or they defend the actions of the climate scientists. Some of these leading scientists were caught intimidating scientific journals to keep skeptics prom publishing and altering data to make the case for man made global warming. The emails also reveal that these scientists have deleted data or refused freedom of information requests and have deleted emails relevant to those requests, a criminal offence. NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has also been stonewalling freedom of information efforts. It is clear from the emails that a small but powerful group of leading climate scientists have used their lofty positions to pervert the science of climate change.

"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it's not a pollutant, it's a product of every living creature's breathing, it's the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it's a product of all industrial burning, it's a product of driving = I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

See PDF with partial list of references here.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_inc ... cience.pdf

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Josh Cryer wrote: seedload, do you have other reconstructions you'd prefer to share?
Yes, Loehle. Here is a link - http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
Josh Cryer wrote: By "MWP was not warmer than now" I meant that the assumptions that were made about MWP "being warmer than now" were based on a flawed understanding of the data. We know the Vikings were roaming around at that point, so we assumed "it must have been much warmer." But when you look at the proxy data, it obviously is not, in all the models, "warmer than now." greenman on YouTube illustrates how the obfuscation lobby likes to manipulate the facts and pretend that MWP = warmer than now. MWP from Lamb's data was EU-centric, and did not represent the global temperature measurements, Mann wrote a global map, and MWP was shown to be not as strong as was thought. Watch the video (to others who doubt, too).
Look, with due respect, you are making assumptions about how I am coming to my conclusions. Vikings have nothing to do with it - or at least very little. You assume that I need to be informed about the a regional potential to the MWP as if I can't think for myself. You assume that I am guided by and "obfuscation lobby" rather than actually being capable of thinking for myself. Your video treats me like an idiot and actually destroys your original argument - which was that it is not all about Mann. That video was ALL about Mann. Then you say, "Mann wrote a global map". Well, is it about Mann or isn't it? You confuse me.

Anyway, I have kinda tried to learn about Mann's methods. I have studied Mann08 and I conclude that his methods are not good. This is what Mann basically does.

1) He takes a bunch of proxies.
2) He throws away those that do not have a good correlation to instrumental temperature.
3) He scales and averages the ones that are left.

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

Well, no. Step 2 sucks. Here is why.

If you take samples of noise and throw away the samples where the noise doesn't match a certain pattern during a certain period of time, then you are left with samples of noise that DO match the pattern during the certain period of time, but, during the rest of the time they are still noise. If you average them then you get an average of noise, a flat line, during the periods when you weren't looking for correlation and you get the shape you seek when you were looking for correlation.

That is the problem with Mann's methods, they build hockey sticks.

It is really easy to take Mann08 data, run his process, and get something very similar to his results. If you then individually look at the proxies that remain - they are f'ing noise! I have done it. I can show you. It is crap f'ing noise. No trends. Nothing. Just f'ing noise. It is mostly tree ring data and it is f'ing noise! Sorry to get mad here, but this one really gets to me. Mann is either an idiot or he is dishonest. I think the latter. That is my strong conclusion.

Regarding the rest of the reconstructions in the spagetti graph, Mann is heavily tied into these researchers. So is tree ring data. And I don't like tree ring data or Mann.

Look, to show AGW you don't need to get rid of the MWP. It is only important in the sense that AGW proponents are having such a hard time demonstrating the causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. They are resorting to the "unpresidented temperature" argument as a demonstration of cause - which is a pretty weak argument even if true, IMHO.

regards

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Luzr wrote:
Josh Cryer wrote:I don't believe that is possible. Basic logic says "more greenhouse gas = more heat trapping."
<snip>

First of all, CO2 does not really "trap" heat. It only reflects some IR wavelengths back to the earth. It cannot reflect back more than is coming from the ground. So there has to be a limit to direct CO2 forcing.
That

Which is pretty funny to me because a real greenhouse doesn't get hot because it blocks IR (even though it does). Rather, a real greenhouse gets hot because it traps heat by preventing convection. Build two greenhouses, one that blocks IR (glass) and one that doesn't, and they both get just as hot.

Post Reply