Global warming

[mhaze]

Yes, I am well aware of the story and I have read both sides of the issue on this long ago bit of mud. That's why I thought you might have the actual record of the testimony. A lot of time that will clear up confusions because you can look at the actual way people phrased things. For example, he may have said "Now look at this "high scenario" from Hansen's work blah-blah-blah. In that case, he would not have been a liar.

I'm not interested in debating it with you because I feel the actual record is available and would prove your claims, disprove them or put the truth somewhere in the confused middle ground.

 

[mhaze]

I realize this is hard to swallow for gullible warmers (nice ad hom yes?), but by 1988 a decadal temperature trend was already established. Maybe it impresses you his scenarios appear (deceptively) to have followed that general trend at first glance? Had Hansen made these predictions in 1971 and was even close, that would be something to shout about. However, Hansen was busy creating models for the global cooling gang at that time.

I keep seeing this claim that Hansen's 1988 predictions were validated and figured it would just fade away. Alas, it has not. First, notice in the graph below (Hansen's) the starting point for the observed temperature starts above the start points of the A,B and C predictions:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_10323470aeaff75e9c.jpg

Oops, that must have been an oversight....maybe a Y2K error.

Next, using HadCRUT3 global temperature data through August 2006 with the starting point at 0 where it should be, we get this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_10323470aebdc0202c.jpg

Now here is GISTEMP:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_10323470af46440555.jpg

Houston, we have a problem; there's a lot of gullible people out there.

Also, his GHG predictions were off. So, even if Hansen's "predictions" look close without properly starting at 0 (that must have been an oversight too), in reality temperatures should have been higher. Details, details.
See Hansen's 1998 paper. Pay attention to Figures 5A and 5B.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1998/1998_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Here's a good primer on climate models:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1891-2005.49.pdf

Although my experience is with industrial modeling, the concepts and issues are similar described in the article above, except the unlicensed software engineers creating climate models are also the same ones using them.....and massaging them.

No matter how it's cut, being right for the wrong reasons is still not validation.

Leaving aside the issue of "right for the wrong reasons" (Von Storch's summary of Hansen's graphs) what the three charts show is that Hansen presented a chart with a high, mid and low scenario.

We are interested in this issue as an example of the question "Have the models been fairly accurate". (Note that's a wide question, a lot of ways to address it).

Warmers maintain that Hansen's middle scenario was proved "right". HADCRUT3 and GISTEMP overlays on the graph show that the "right" scenario was "wrong".

Clearly it looks like if Warmers want to maintain the models have had good predictive ability, they need to provide evidence other than Hansen's 1988 screnarios. But there are dozens of climate models and we are hindcasting looking for some run, with some parameters, that got it right, so if enough runs were made, someone should have gotten it right.

Right?

That's really pretty lame.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Rachel Carson was mostly right.

You like mass murderers, don't you?
I'll send you to REASON magazine.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34823.html

Carson was also an effective popularizer of the idea that children were especially vulnerable to the carcinogenic effects of synthetic chemicals. "The situation with respect to children is even more deeply disturbing," she wrote. "A quarter century ago, cancer in children was considered a medical rarity. Today, more American school children die of cancer than from any other disease [her emphasis]." In support of this claim, Carson reported that "twelve per cent of all deaths in children between the ages of one and fourteen are caused by cancer."
Although it sounds alarming, Carson's statistic is essentially meaningless unless it's given some context, which she failed to supply. It turns out that the percentage of children dying of cancer was rising because other causes of death, such as infectious diseases, were drastically declining.
In fact, cancer rates in children have not increased, as they would have if Carson had been right that children were especially susceptible to the alleged health effects of modern chemicals. Just one rough comparison illustrates this point: In 1938 cancer killed 939 children under 14 years old out of a U.S. population of 130 million. In 1998, according to the National Cancer Institute, about 1,700 children died of cancer, out of a population of more than 280 million. In 1999 the NCI noted that "over the past 20 years, there has been relatively little change in the incidence of children diagnosed with all forms of cancer; from 13 cases per 100,000 children in 1974 to 13.2 per 100,000 children in 1995."
Clearly, if cancer incidence isn't going up, modern chemicals can't be a big factor in cancer. But this simple point is lost on Carson's heirs in the environmental movement, who base their careers on pursuing phantom risks. The truth is that both cancer mortality and incidence rates have been declining for about a decade, mostly because of a decrease in the number of cigarette smokers.

...
The Great Cancer Scare launched by Carson, and perpetuated by her environmentalist disciples ever since, should have been put to rest by a definitive 1996 report from the National Academy of Sciences, Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens in the Human Diet. The NAS concluded that levels of both synthetic and natural carcinogens are "so low that they are unlikely to pose an appreciable cancer risk." Worse yet from the point of view of anti-chemical crusaders, the NAS added that Mother Nature's own chemicals probably cause more cancer than anything mankind has dreamed up: "Natural components of the diet may prove to be of greater concern than synthetic components with respect to cancer risk."

 

[mhaze]

John Tierney, writing in the NYT, "Diet and Fat", says that the scientific consensus on diet and fat....

WRONG!!!

Recently scientists figured out they are clueless about the mechanisms of ozone formation and how or if CFCs affect them.

Consensus....WRONG AGAIN!!!

Can anybody think of some other areas where there might be a "scientific consensus" that might be wrong?

Hmm.....

 

[mhaze]

British Court Rules against Gore's Film

Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given, the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.


In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that

1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.

3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

​

The inaccuracies are:

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

 

[Schneibster]

Thanks for drawing my attention to this.

The paper makes interesting claims in those pages:

1. There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the ctitious atmospheric greenhouse eect, which explains the relevant physical phenomena. The terms \greenhouse eect" and \greenhouse gases" are deliberate misnomers.

The differences between the way a greenhouse works to retain heat and the way the atmosphere works to retain heat are obvious. Nobody in their right mind thinks that the Earth's atmosphere is covered with glass. The author spends over half the paper "proving" that the Earth's atmosphere is not covered with glass. This is redundant, to say the least. It's also a strawman.

2. There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet
-with or without atmosphere,
-with or without rotation,
-with or without infrared light absorbing gases.

By this reasoning there are no calculations appropriate to determine the average temperature of a room in your house, much less a planet. Not to mention, "average" is a mathematical term, and maintaining that numerical values are not subject to mathematics seems a bit odd to me. How about you?

The frequently mentioned difference of 33 C for the fictitious greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is therefore a meaningless number.

OK, so why isn't the surface of the Earth the same temperature as the surface of the Moon? You know, 107C during the day, with hot spots up to 123C, and -153C at night, with cold spots down to -233C? After all, the Moon is at the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is; if the atmosphere doesn't warm it up, shouldn't it be the same temperature?

Here is the data for the Moon.

3. Any radiation balance for the average radiant flux is completely irrelevant for the determination of the ground level air temperatures and thus for the average value as well.

But I thought there WASN'T an average value. Isn't that what was said just a few short bullet points ago? Must have been my imagination.

4. Average temperature values cannot be identied with the fourth root of average values of the absolute temperature's fourth power.

Who says they are? Please provide a link. Meanwhile, are you familiar with RMS averaging, and its use in power electronics? Is RMS averaging equally inaccurate? (Caution: there are many EEs here.) And that's just for starters.

5. Radiation and heat flows do not determine the temperature distributions and their average values.

This is wrong on so many levels, it's difficult to even say anything coherent about it.

First, radiation IS a heat flow. Second, temperature is merely a convenient measure of heat; it is in fact a derived value, determined by, among other factors, the heat content of an object. Third, if heat moves, then temperature changes; and it goes down where the heat came from, and up where it went to. So, in fact, heat flow DOES determine temperature distribution. Fourth, I thought there wasn't any "average temperature?" It was claimed earlier (and this is not the first time I have said this) that there is no such thing as "average temperature" (however wrong that statement may be). So this statement is not only inconsistent with physics, it's also internally inconsistent with results the author has already claimed to have proven.

6. Re-emission is not reflection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the actual heat flow without mechanical work.

The complete lack of knowledge of scattering that this statement reveals is astounding in someone who claims to know anything about physics.

Furthermore, the author appears to have constructed another strawman, specifically attempting to convey that ground-level air is warmed by the re-emitted radiation returning from the atmosphere. Ground-level air is heated BY THE GROUND, as anyone who is not either an idiot or obfuscating would know. Mixing then carries this heat upward, since warm air rises, as anyone who is not either an idiot or obfuscating would also know.

Finally, re-emission does not have to be reflection in order to have the stated effect.

7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the \average" fictitious radiation balance, which has no physical justication anyway, was given up.

The thermal conductivity of air is a parameter specified in such models; the standard thermal conductivity constant, k, is used. Its units are W/mK. See this, which suggests using it to construct extremely simplified models suitable for undergraduate work in atmospheric modeling.

This guy seems to have a real problem with "average;" now, it's average radiation balance. Whatever.

8. After Schack 1972 water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption of the infrared radiation in the Earth's atmosphere. The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and does not change considerably by raising its partial pressure.

What "small part?" You mean 12%? See Wayne (1985). Note that changes between 1956 and 1984 (the latest data available at the time of publication) are documented, as is the change in the level of trapped radiation as a result.

9. Infrared absorption does not imply \backwarming". Rather it may lead to a drop of the temperature of the illuminated surface.

So, I'll go cool my hands in front of a fire.

This cannot be serious. Absorption of infrared radiation leads to cooling??!!?

10. In radiation transport models with the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, it is assumed that the absorbed radiation is transformed into the thermal movement of all gas molecules. There is no increased selective re-emission of infrared radiation at the low temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere.

First, these two sentences are not related to one another in any way that is apparent. Second, the strawman is re-erected: re-emission leads DIRECTLY to warming of the lower atmosphere. Nothing of the kind is happening, or is asserted to be happening by anyone with the most basic knowledge of physics. It is the ground that is warmed, not the air. The ground then warms the air.

11. In climate models, planetary or astrophysical mechanisms are not accounted for properly.
The time dependency of the gravity acceleration by the Moon and the Sun (high tide and low tide) and the local geographic situation, which is important for the local climate, cannot be taken into account.

Astrology? I can't make sense of this in any other way.

12. Detection and attribution studies, predictions from computer models in chaotic systems, and the concept of scenario analysis lie outside the framework of exact sciences, in particular theoretical physics.

Actually, considerable work on nonlinear dynamical systems has been done, and numerical simulations of such systems are common in fluid dynamics, geophysics, and other disciplines. Ever hear of the Navier-Stokes equations? I don't suppose THOSE have anything to do with physics, huh?

This is now officially boring. I could continue and blast every other remaining point, but what's the use? This is a waste of time, and it's now obvious that so is the "paper." Amusing, but has nothing to do with science, other than claiming to be such.

 

[Schneibster]

I thought this thread was about science, not bashing popularizations of same. I've personally never seen AIT.

 

[mhaze]

Umm...well, the "Science" thread is hopefully just science. This one is labeled just "Global warming", so I thought that would fit.

 

[Schneibster]

Recently scientists figured out they are clueless about the mechanisms of ozone formation and how or if CFCs affect them.

Consensus....WRONG AGAIN!!!

CFCs' effects aren't on formation of ozone.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes, I am well aware of the story and I have read both sides of the issue on this long ago bit of mud. That's why I thought you might have the actual record of the testimony. A lot of time that will clear up confusions because you can look at the actual way people phrased things. For example, he may have said "Now look at this "high scenario" from Hansen's work blah-blah-blah. In that case, he would not have been a liar.

You say you've "read both sides", but there is only one side. Michaels presented a graph showing only Scenario A (high emissions) against the outcome and did not present the other scenarios. Deliberate deception. Otherwise he'd have presented all scenarios - but he didn't. No blah-blah-blah. Nada.

I'm not interested in debating it with you because I feel the actual record is available and would prove your claims, disprove them or put the truth somewhere in the confused middle ground.

No confusion. Michaels presented the Hansen et al graph with Scenarios B and C erased. It's a matter of public record. He made no mention of emission scenarios at all, just "this is Hansen's projection which is radically different from the outcome". A lie. Intentional and prepared in advance .

What's the "other side" of that? There isn't one, is there? You just made that up.

Pat Michaels is a liar. Live with it.

 

[CapelDodger]

Hmm....

Biofuels are on the list of "good things" that the IPCC suggests nations should do to prevent global warming.

A chapter and page reference for that would be considerate, don't you think?

I've searched the Summary For Policymakers and there's no mention of biofuels. Are you sure this isn't just something you've made up?

The "Summary" refers to the science and projected impact of climate change. Policies are the domain of the policymakers. Biofuels, carbon trading, ignore it, whatever - that's for the governments to decide.

Heavy use of biofuels is a highly contentious issue that most environmental organisations oppose. In the US it's a highly politicised issue, used to justify subsidising Iowa corn-farmers while spreading some greenwash and Homeland Security energy-independence hogwash. In Brazil it has proved a lifeline for that traditional economic mainstay, sugar-production. Some European governments like the idea because they're also used to heavy agricultural subsidies. Mostly governments like it because doesn't say "you people have to drive less in smaller cars".

None of this has anything to do with the IPCC. The IPCC was commissioned by national governments, under the auspices of the UN, to collate and regularly report on the current state of climate-related science. It was not commissioned to advise those governments on what to do about it. Policymakers have their own policy-wonks to do that for them.

(I know I'm repeating myself, but sometimes that's what you gotta do.)

 

[mhaze]

I'll look around, give me a day or so. It was in an appendix to the SPM entitled something like "Recommendations for Mitigation". Came up in a discussion in one of these threads a while back where the question was could someone find a factually wrong statement or a lie in the IPCC stuff.

I thought that citing the promotion of biofuels was worth mentioning in that context. Of course, remember here that the SPM really is political - a lot of people don't know that or understand what it means.

There's another totally ridiculous, science fiction appendix on Carbon Sequestration, which we all know does not exist. They might have gotten a few scientists to sign off on that one, no engineers would have.

Again, written for the politicians...

 

[mhaze]

Incidentally, CD, why is it that the British Gov. underwrites most of the cost of the IPCC? Is that even true, I read it somewhere with no authentication and wouldn't be sure how to figure it out. Not looking for a conspiracy, just curious.

 

[CapelDodger]

I realize this is hard to swallow for gullible warmers (nice ad hom yes?) ...

That's not an ad hom, it's a sneer. Ad Hominem pertains to a style of argument, not to personal styles.

... but by 1988 a decadal temperature trend was already established. Maybe it impresses you his scenarios appear (deceptively) to have followed that general trend at first glance? Had Hansen made these predictions in 1971 and was even close, that would be something to shout about.

The model was run from 1959 conditions. You can read about it at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

"These experiments were started from a control run with 1959 conditions and used observed greenhouse gas forcings up until 1984, and projections subsequently (NB. Scenario A had a slightly larger 'observed' forcing change to account for a small uncertainty in the minor CFCs). It should also be noted that these experiments were single realisations. Nowadays we would use an ensemble of runs with slightly perturbed initial conditions (usually a different ocean state) in order to average over 'weather noise' and extract the 'forced' signal. In the absence of an ensemble, this forced signal will be clearest in the long term trend."

So the decadal trend was reproduced by the model.

If we cast our minds back twenty years we'll realise why there weren't ensemble runs. With the computer power available back then three complete runs was asking a lot.

However, Hansen was busy creating models for the global cooling gang at that time.

A baseless accusation.

In the 70's climate models were castles-in-the-sky stuff, beer-talk, "If we had wings we could fly ...". I was at UEA in the 70's and there's more computing power in a frickin' cellphone than there was on the entire campus back then. Hansen would have been better served at NASA, but a very significant proportion would have been dedicated to the space program. NASA did a lot of that back then, as I recall.

I keep seeing this claim that Hansen's 1988 predictions were validated and figured it would just fade away.

They keep getting better. As pointed out in the quote above, single runs get better over the longer-term.

And that was just a model from 1988. Imagine what more recent models have told (and are telling) us. (I'm assuming it'll require imagination on your part, since you're still fighting this old battle.)

 

[CapelDodger]

Incidentally, CD, why is it that the British Gov. underwrites most of the cost of the IPCC? Is that even true, I read it somewhere with no authentication and wouldn't be sure how to figure it out. Not looking for a conspiracy, just curious.

With Gordon in charge at the Treasury? And now at the Big House? Not bloody likely. The IPCC is funded via the UN. It's not terribly expensive.

This idea probably derives from the Hadley Centre and UEA's Climate Research Unit being in UK government-funded institutions. The British focus on weather and climate is a historical accident, but no less real for that. A world-spanning trading empire Ruled By The Waves naturally regards the subject as defence-related, and it's funded accordingly. Far more ships have been lost to storm than to enemy action. The Met Office - originally a Royal Navy department which still has a presence at Admiralty House - is the model of later weather services. (As I recall, the US Weather Bureau only really got going around the Spanish War when the War Department took it under its wing. Cuba, hurricane season, very expensive navy. Perceived threat from Spanish Navy : nil. The same thinking applied vis-a-vis the Philippines.)

Institutions are spawned, expertise accumulates, and the speciality survives the empire. Sadly we lost the lead in practical computing, but when it comes to weather we Brits are matchless. Apart from anything else we get a lot of it - nothing extreme, just a crowded middle. That's a geographical accident .

 

[a_unique_person]

You like mass murderers, don't you?
I'll send you to REASON magazine.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34823.html

I'll send you here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94067

 

[CapelDodger]

I'll look around, give me a day or so.

I'd appreciate that.

It was in an appendix to the SPM entitled something like "Recommendations for Mitigation". Came up in a discussion in one of these threads a while back where the question was could someone find a factually wrong statement or a lie in the IPCC stuff.

I thought that citing the promotion of biofuels was worth mentioning in that context. Of course, remember here that the SPM really is political - a lot of people don't know that or understand what it means.

There's another totally ridiculous, science fiction appendix on Carbon Sequestration, which we all know does not exist. They might have gotten a few scientists to sign off on that one, no engineers would have.

Again, written for the politicians...

Quite. The IPCC lies in the overlap between politics and science, and was designed by the politicians not to get out-of-hand. If politicians want biofuels or CCS in there somewhere, that's what they get. It's mood-music in place of unpopular action.

Science is far more substantial than politics, which is why the real meat in the IPCC reports concerns the science of climate change. And in that it just reports the splendid work done by research teams and institutions in the purely science world.

The science of biofuels, CCS and whatnot is patched on for political reasons. Forget that stuff. There will be no mitigation. All these diplomatic jollies to discuss talking about doing undecided stuff at some point after negotiations ...

Biofuels and CCS will come in if they make economic sense, as will nuclear power. Biofuel already makes sense in Brazil, but that has roots. Planting (so to speak) biofuel on the US economy overnight by government diktat is a silly notion. But that's where universal suffrage gets you in a democracy.

China seems to be keeping its eye on the ball. (Growth now so they're well-placed when things kick off.) Russia and Canada are taking an increasingly pragmatic approach to global warming as the new Arctic Frontier opens up in front of them. India has its eyes fixed on Pakistan/Kashmir and the next (and last) few decades of West Tibetan melt-water. The US is fixated on the Middle East. Europe is fixated on its own identity.

Far too many short-term priorities for climate-change to seriously intrude until it muscles its way in. And even then the effect and response will be regional at best. At worst it'll be local and violent.

It was ever thus.

 

[CapelDodger]

I thought this thread was about science, not bashing popularizations of same. I've personally never seen AIT.

Nor I.

I have watched the Are We Changing the Planet? documentary presented by David Attenborough. A guy with far more credibility (what am I saying? he's a secular saint) than Al Gore. And yet a major focus of contrarian attack is on An Interminable Truth. What's that about?

It can't just be because Al Gore's an 'Murrican, unlike David Attenborough, because otherwise the Swindle would never have got beyond UK Channel 4. I find I have to conclude that its because AIT is an easier target and Al Gore is a big fish in a small pool.

 

[a_unique_person]

Recently scientists figured out they are clueless about the mechanisms of ozone formation and how or if CFCs affect them.

Consensus....WRONG AGAIN!!!

"Clueless"? Give me a break.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'll send you here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94067

I haven't been there but "mass murderer" ... this is malaria and DDT, isn't it? The phase-out plan that exempted use for health reasons - as in malaria and mosquitoes.

Concern for the less well-endowed of the world often seems to be conditional on the ideological point supposedly being made - in this case, the illegitimacy of regulation under any circumstances.

It's hypocrisy when pushed consciously, but simple credulity in most cases.