Friday, November 4, 2011

Another climate lie



There's been no warming in a decade, and they lied about it.

Oh my.

41 comments:

  1. Take a look at that graph of the last ten years again. Plot a regression curve through that set of data. It isn't flat.

    You're busy lying again.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michael,

    No one thinks that CO2 is the only factor influencing climate. The Earth's climate is complex. Global temperatures fluctuate both up and down year to year depending on the balance of conflicting factors.

    What's happened in the last 10 years? The Sun's output is still at a low. The sunspot activity is at a minimum. The stratosphere is cooling due to the reduced solar activity. India and China are continuing to industrialize and using a lot of dirty coal creating a brown haze over much of eastern Asia. Are the levels of SO2 particulates going up too, which would be expected to increase the Earth's albedo and cause a cooling effect? If so, when China and India clean their emissions from coal, as the West did in the '80s, is that going to lead to increased warming?

    To disprove AGW all you need to do is to prove that increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere won't cause increased retention of heat within the Earth and hence cause global warming, OR that humans aren't responsible for the CO2 level going from 270 to 390 ppmv.

    Regardless of whether AGW is true or not (and I think it is, the physics are pretty clear on it), we have a major problem with regard to future energy security.

    As I've noted many times before, our standard of living depends on having cheap abundant energy. We'll need to double our energy supplies by 2050 because of the expected population increase to at least 9 billion, which is locked in owing to the population demographics, and to extend electricity to those who don't have it now.

    On a business as usual plan, just doubling energy from all our present sources (double oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear etc), we'd need to find 180 million barrels of oil per day instead of 90. A major oil field might contain 5 billion barrels of oil, enough for 7 weeks at current consumption, so we need to find dozens of new fields every year, to allow for established fields being depleted. The major field in Saudi Arabia (60% of its output and around 10% of world supply) produces so much because water is pumped into the field to force the oil out. When the proportion of water coming with the oil increases, then that's a worrying sign since that suggests that the supply of oil from that field is about to happen, and it's currently happening there.

    It's not a question of whether energy is going to become more expensive or not. It is, just because of market forces of supply and demand. We are going to have to develop more sources of energy. Fossil fuels are a finite reserve and they will eventually run out, and as they do, they will become increasingly expensive.

    The GFC was partly caused by the spike in oil prices causing increased financial stress in Americans with mortgages they could barely afford without the increase in gasoline prices.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @bach:

    Yada yada.

    The point of my post wasn't that AGW is a hoax-- that would be like writing a post that the earth is round-- but rather that the AGW frauds have lied again, egregiously. The BEST study smoothed the data for the last decade for the 200 year graph, but failed to note that the unmanipulated data for the past decade shows no warming. In the midst of this raging debate, such an omission is obvious deception.

    This isn't about AGW, which is an obvious hoax, but about the blatant fraud of the "scientists".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Michael,

    No, AGW isn't a hoax. Why don't you try to actually answer my challenge instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and spouting off your anti science viewpoint?

    I made a slight error in my previous comment. It should have read that the proportion of water coming from the Saudi Ghawar field is increasing suggesting that output is going to decline.

    And again, energy security is a major problem, which isn't going to go away. Sowing a 1,000 problems isn't going to reap a 1,000 solutions. We are going to have to think very seriously about what we are going to do, and quickly. 2050 isn't that far off ...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here we go again with the atheist mantra:

    Let's scare the shit out of people, they will gladly give MUCHO DINERO for us!

    How to Lie with Statistics is their Bible!

    ReplyDelete
  6. @bach
    What's happened in the last 10 years? The Sun's output is still at a low. The sunspot activity is at a minimum. The stratosphere is cooling due to the reduced solar activity. India and China are continuing to industrialize and using a lot of dirty coal creating a brown haze over much of eastern Asia. Are the levels of SO2 particulates going up too, which would be expected to increase the Earth's albedo and cause a cooling effect? If so, when China and India clean their emissions from coal, as the West did in the '80s, is that going to lead to increased warming?

    That is bullshit to power of infinity!

    level going from 270 to 390 ppmv.

    Relax, Charlie! Unless you have a fixation...

    The GFC was partly caused by the spike in oil prices causing increased financial stress in Americans with mortgages they could barely afford without the increase in gasoline prices.

    Wow! How do you sleep at night... or maybe you don't!

    ReplyDelete
  7. @bach

    I can recommend a good psychiatrist!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pepe,

    'I can recommend a good psychiatrist!'

    No thanks. I don't want to consult any psychiatrist who obviously hasn't had any success whatsoever in treating your lack of contact with reality.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Michael,

    The bottom graph comes from the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Sounds reputable, doesn't it?

    It was set up in 2009, renting office space from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. It its last financial statement it received almost 500,000 pounds from unnamed donors and 8,000 pounds from members.

    It's website contains a lot of articles extolling shale gas, blasting wind farms as ugly and insisting that the land affected by strip mining can be returned to better condition than before mining.

    The graph just takes the monthly figures and graphs those. It's usual to use a 13 month moving average to smooth out the data else your data will be affected by extreme seasonal weather conditions.

    I haven't looked at the BEST data (it's a very large file and takes a very long time to download), but I wonder how much weighting is present in the data. The graph from the GWPF shows a lot of variation throughout the year, with an enormous drop in early 2010.

    There's many more weather stations in the Northern hemisphere, so you need to weight the data towards the Southern hemisphere, otherwise you'd just get peaks in the northern summer. What you should be seeing are peak global temperatures in January/February, because that's when the Earth is closest to the Sun.

    Not everything you read on the Internet is true. You have to have some skepticism and ask whether the authors might have some ulterior motives.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I wouldn't put too much trust in the Daily Mail. Here is Judith Curry's take on its sensationalist article.

    This is not to mention that the Global Warming Policy Foundation is not a credible source. They tend to embellish their claims.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Bach,
    Let me get this straight...
    We are currently cooling because of coal scrub in the upper atmosphere and a solar minimum. But when that dust is reduced, and the sun warms up conditions will lead to further warming.
    Is that more or less correct? Is that the general gist of your idea?

    I suspect the subtle inference here is that it is okay for India, and China and Asia in general to pollute freely. In fact, they are SAVING us with their coal dust!
    This coming from the only guy I know who LIKES Red China, having actually SEEN it is just a little rich. Especially when combined with such a very strong whine.
    I will suggest you are blinded by your political bias, not shaded by communist coal dust.

    ANYWAY... to the points:

    1)Your comment implies that CO2 is NOT the only factor, and the BIGGEST factor in your entire equation is NOT 'Anthropogenic' at all, but a solar CYCLE. Why the big 'A'? Why not something like SICC? (Solar Influenced Climate Cycle)
    2)It seems to me that you are suggesting that the A in AGW can only be seen if the most potent and realistic effects are removed from the data. AGW, it seems, is only visible with a special filter attached that removes entire layers (dimensions) of the of the problem in order to concentrate on one single aspect.
    I suggest to you that is 2d thinking, and that solutions/adaptations will only present themselves when the ENTIRE picture is realized: In full colour, full depth, and given proper historic considerations. In 4d!
    3)Global warming and cooling are real trends. Whether or not man influences these trends in certain ways is a legitimate concern. But to BLAME climate change on technology and advancement, then to expect the SAME pretensions made by the same set if a$$holes who GOT US there to 'save us' with space reflectors, windmills and heavy taxation is just NOT realistic thinking. It's NOT going to happen, EVEN if you think it SHOULD. Political and Environmental conservatism are both somewhat achievable goals. But climate conservation? Er no...
    4)This suggested scenario (coal/minimum balanced with CO2)is more than a little convenient to fit the odds presented. It begs the question 'why'. Why should such a balance present itself EXACTLY when needed? Why should the selfish and destructive behaviour of a group of totalitarians ruling over an empire of slaves produce JUST the required chemical soup to protect us all from a rapid extinction? Just another bizarre coincidence in this HUGE coincidence we call existence? That may be good enough for an academic with his nose in a book and a mind to get on to the next chapter, but not for real people with real concerns. Like those families losing their homes you mentioned in an earlier post.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ ALL
    This AGW nonsense should be called out for what it is: Justification for CLIMATE ENGINEERING.
    These folks want to experiment with things like solar balloons to deflect the sun, redirecting storms, the alteration  of atmospheric chemicals, pressure and charges.
    Some really weird stuff comes from the 'cutting edge' of 'climate science' (ie lunatic fringe).

    Let's be clear:
    This latest pretension of 'science' is no longer about killing animals in horrible ways in order to satiate curiosity on living systems, aborting children by the millions, experimenting on old, weak, insane, or injured people, 'euthanizing' the old, sick, and mentally underdeveloped people in the name of 'progress'.
    It is not even about genetically engineering plants, bugs, and EVEN animals to perform specific unnatural functions. It is not even about introducing HUMAN genes into food animals any more.
    All of the above nightmares have already been 'achieved' and/or are in current use.
    These horrors are called openly called 'progress' and 'science' openly by so called 'civilized' people.

    No....
    Climate Engineering is NEW and 'cutting edge'. This is not farmer Joe seeing the clouds, or a more sensible way to cut lumber or farm trout.
    Climate Engineering is about experimenting with the life systems of our ENTIRE WORLD.
    Our HOME WORLD is the Petri dish they want to play with now.
    AGW is the EXCUSE. They that push AGW are telling you the sky is falling  - that the 'end of the world is nigh'- so that the normal folks will give their the money and permission required to play God with our world, once again. They that push this nonsense are those that seek to see the climate engineered, or their 'useful idiots'. I for one, am neither.
    Buy this AGW scientistic Hubris at your own peril.
    Caveat Emptor.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't think bach gets the meaning of the A in AGW.

    Worse, he chides Pepe with, "I don't want to consult any psychiatrist who obviously hasn't had any success whatsoever in treating your lack of contact with reality."

    However, atheism itself is denial of reality.
    Go figure.

    These atheists contradict themselves at every turn but their unconscious acute cognitive dissonance impedes their own reasoning processes from detecting this.

    Something like repentance is required to restore normal brain function.

    ReplyDelete
  15. CrusadeRex,

    Go back and reread my comments. I noted that climate is complex, and that no one thinks that CO2 is the only factor driving climate.

    AGW is based on logic. Greenhouse gases cause global warming by retaining heat in the atmosphere. Increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will increase retention of heat and cause increased warming. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and humans are causing it to increase by burning fossil fuels, a source of carbon that hasn't seen the light of day for at least 100 million years. Therefore, humans are causing global warming.

    The degree and rate of warming, its consequences and whether it's being hidden by other factors is open to debate. The suggestions that it's currently being masked by a solar minimum or the SO2 particulates from burning of coal are reasonable. You can't expect them to continue. Beijing has unbreathable air for long periods, and doesn't bother to even record particulates smaller than 10 microns, whereas it's the particulates of 2.5 microns that are dangerous.

    Also, we are, like it or not, already engaged in performing an experiment by dumping hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Condemning science for suggesting ways of avoiding catastrophe because they're the ones who have got us into the present mess, by developing technology and coal powered plants, and thinking that we can therefore continue to do what we are currently doing is bizarre thinking of monumental proportions.

    The fact remains that fossil fuels are finite resources and will eventually run out. That's what finite means. Oil and gas will run out earlier, because they're fluids, and need specific geologies to form reservoirs, otherwise they'll leak to the outside and dissipate. There's more coal, because it's a solid and once formed isn't going anywhere, but it's also polluting, because of it's spongelike ability of absorbing toxic heavy metals such as mercury and uranium.

    We've got hard decisions to make. We need a lot more energy with the increasing global population. Where do we get it? We're using 90 million barrels of oil a day. The Athabasca oil sands contains perhaps 2 trillion barrels of bitumen. If 10% is recoverable, by estimates of energy authorities, that's 200 billion barrels, enormous, but still only a bit more than 2,000 days (or around 7 years) at current rates of consumption, and it takes a lot of energy and water to process it to get it into a usable form. The price of oil has to go much higher to make more of it viable, and as I noted, the GFC was partly due to the price of oil spiking due to market not government forces.

    Our present standard of living is predicated on having cheap and abundant energy. In the West, each of us is using the equivalent of the physical labour of 100 humans. Energy is going to become more expensive as oil and natural gas run out anyway, so where do we get the energy in future? Are we going to return to a preindustrial standard of living or are we going to have to accept a heavily polluted environment caused by massive burning of coal?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Haven’t you heard the news? The most prominent scientist skeptical of global warming, Richard Muller (Berkeley physicist, hockey stick critic, and Glenn Beck Guest) has completed a Koch brothers funded analysis of surface temperature data. He concluded that the hockey stick is real, that the IPC global warming predictions are conservative, and that we continue to warm at an accelerating rate.

    Muller announced his results in a modest Wall Street Journal Op-Ed that has been virtually ignored by the right wing media. Two or three days after the story broke I searched for it on the FOX News website and got nothing. The story is first mentioned of the Fox Website a week after Dr. Muller’s op-ed and was, predictably, a criticism of his report. Business as usual in climate change denier land.

    One thing you can always count on is that on the big issues Dr. Egnor will always be on the side that leads to more human suffering. When the big news in the science and politics of the global warming debate is a confirmation of the warming funded by the Koch brothers, Dr. Egnor is content to ignore it and tell you the exact opposite. When someone with intellectual talent, a prominent position, and relative wealth, like Dr. Egnor, resorts to spreading destructive lies on the internet, you’ve got to wonder if there really is an organized doomsday cult fighting to bring about their holy Armageddon.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  17. Opps, I should have followed the link before I posted, That is the same story I read On the FOX site.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  18. @KW:

    Sorry to take a bit to reply. I was at my Christian Dominionism meeting and I ran the breakout session on maximizing human suffering. So much to do, so little time!

    Muller's story stinks. I couldn't care less who funds him. I think there is reason to doubt that he was ever a genuine skeptic, and his "conversion" to AGW orthodoxy is awfully convenient. Could'a predicted it.

    It is no surprise that temps have been increasing for a couple of hundred years. We are emerging from the Little Ice Age. It is noteworthy that the increase has not correlated all that well with increasing CO2 levels. The increase began long before CO2 levels rose.

    The real fraud here-- ad it is fraud-- is Muller's failure to publicly point out that raw temps for the past decade have shown no warming. Data smoothing hid this in the 200 year graph, but when the massaging is taken away for the past decade, zippo warming, despite substantial increases in CO2.

    This is a crucial point highly relevant to the debate, but Muller "overlooked" it.

    Just fraud.

    What is

    ReplyDelete
  19. Michael,

    Your reality distortion field is still working at full force. AGW is true by logic. See my previous comment. Even if it isn't happening, the need for energy security, means we need to be developing alternate sources of energy quickly anyway. Sticking your head in the sand and hoping unfortunately isn't going to work.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Michael,

    You ran the Christian Dominionism breakout meeting on 'maximizing human suffering'?

    It just shows that my appreciation of theology is deficient. I'd always thought the aim of everyone, the religious and nonreligious alike, is to minimize human suffering.

    If maximizing human suffering is the aim of Christianity, then let me out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Blogger bachfiend said...

    " Your reality distortion field is still working at full force. AGW is true by logic."

    True by logic?

    Right, I'll have to remember that one. An atheist thinks he's being logical - all while his whole world view is utterly illogical.

    Worse, there is no valid logic in your AGW view anyway.

    "Sticking your head in the sand and hoping unfortunately isn't going to work."

    Yet this is what you're doing!

    This is indeed strange:
    "If maximizing human suffering is the aim of Christianity, then let me out of it."

    You were never in it bach. You're on the other side of the good vs evil fence - the Dark Side, to use a famous line.

    There is no light in you.

    ReplyDelete
  22. bachfiend said ...

    "holy Armageddon."

    ???!!!

    Just incredible how messed up your "theology" is, let alone the rest of your empty metaphysics.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Gary,

    So, do you think that maximizing human suffering is the aim of Christianity too?

    I was once a Christian. I was sent to Methodist Sunday School for years. I just never thought that it had the answers, so I just gradually dropped it. I think the turning point might have been whether I read a letter in the local newspaper when I was a teenager (memory is unreliable) noting that the major religions contradict each other in major ways and asking which one is correct. I added the conclusion that none of them are correct, and my weak belief disappeared.

    The logic of AGW can be found in my previous comments. Read them, and comment if you're able.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Egnor: "The BEST study smoothed the data for the last decade for the 200 year graph, but failed to note that the unmanipulated data for the past decade shows no warming. In the midst of this raging debate, such an omission is obvious deception."

    This claim is both silly and untrue.

    First, anyone with rudimentary understanding of statistics knows that smoothing the data does not change the average slope. It gets rid of fluctuations but the trend remains. If anything, smoothing brings out the trend.

    Second, it is well known that the instrumental temperature record shows periods without warming. Fr example, the period from 1940 to 1965 saw a slight cooling trend. This is caused by natural variability of climate, phenomena like the EL-Nino Southern Oscillation. We don't expect a steady rise in global temperatures.

    The combined amount of ignorance and arrogance on this blog is at explosive levels. Have you totally lost an ability to learn?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Oleg,

    Just a rhetorical question. Are you surprised? Fun though it might be reading this blog so as to be amazed at the ignorance and arrogance displayed, starting with Michael, going downwards in the chain of his acolytes, I wonder if I have better things to do with my time?

    Naw...,!

    ReplyDelete
  26. It's like watching a train wreck.

    ReplyDelete
  27. * Sound of crickets chirping. *

    ReplyDelete
  28. @oleg, bach, etc:

    Has there been any net warming over the past 10 years?

    Simple question.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The question may be simple, but the answer is not (unless you just want a sound byte). Look at the last figure in this PDF file. We can then discuss what it means.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @oleg:

    The PDF file has nothing to do with my question.

    Has there been any net warming over the past 10 years?

    Your unwillingness to answer the question answers the question. There has been no warming. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mike,

    You want a quick sound byte as an answer, here is your answer: FUCK OFF. I cannot have a serious discussion with a dork who is asking to give a one-bit answer to a question that cannot be answered in a simple yes or no.

    I don't know what causes your brain to shut down like that, but it is a serious condition.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @oleg:

    Sums up the AGW scientists reply to honest questions about the science.

    "F**K OFF".

    ReplyDelete
  33. Michael,

    Also, have you recovered from running your meeting on 'maximizing human suffering?'

    ReplyDelete
  34. Egnor: "Sums up the AGW scientists reply to honest questions about the science."

    It's a gotcha question. You're not interested in learning about the science of climate change. Demagogues like you cannot be part of a dialogue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The caveat is that it isn't a statistical problem that is screwing up the data; it is the GCMs and the methods used [tree-rings, weather stations before the launch of the '79 satellites, et al.] that render our observations of a complex system both meaningless and insignificant.

      Science has a specific meanings, and this doesn't correspond to any of them. There is no "science" to what they are trying to do; it is a justification for climate engineering (look again to the hypothesis and tests that are being based off this "science") which is a socio-political and not a scientific problem.

      Delete
  35. Michael,

    Aha... I get it. It was a joke. The meeting was to maximize human suffering. It wasn't ON maximizing human suffering.

    Although, from experience with departmental meetings, the only ones who don't suffer during the meetings are the ones running them.

    ReplyDelete
  36. oleg said...

    Mike,

    You want a quick sound byte as an answer, here is your answer: FUCK OFF.


    Wow. This guy is a real genius. I'll bet Oleg spends his days using colorful superlatives like this on youtube "debates".

    As they say, "you can lead and atheist to evidence but your can't make him think"

    Oleg doesn't understand the word "think".
    Hey and thats not an insult. He "thinks" thought is electron movement in meat.

    The Astonishing Hypothesis is that "You," your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons."

    (p. 3) -Francis Crick (1994) "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul"

    That pretty much sums up the atheist view of life and the value of "thinking".

    ReplyDelete
  37. Its hard to believe anyone could be so blind and gullible to have presented - as an argument - the pdf Oleg posts here.

    As though it had some absolute sort scientific authoritative value.

    I mean seriously, who says that human emissions are responsible in this doc?
    The IPCC.
    Wow, hardly the objective scientist group.

    Not only so but the doc contains several outright lies and misrepresentations of the facts.

    People like Oleg love to dismiss all the other evidence that says they are wrong.

    They never read stuff like this:

    Like this interesting article.

    Or how about THIS one?

    Or this link here

    Or again here

    And here

    And here is my fave.

    Wow, notice the date on that last one! I guess ya just can't trust scientists any more. lol

    ReplyDelete
  38. Gary,

    I started reading your interesting article, but the very first line indicated to me that whoever wrote it is either plain stupid or is a malicious liar. What was that first line?

    Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming.

    That's just insane, my friend. If you had half a brain you would be able to realize it. Daily temperatures at any given place fluctuate a lot. It can be easily 5 degrees cooler or warmer tomorrow when a cold or hot front arrives. Does that wipe out a monthly temperature trend? I don't think so.

    Even after averaging over one year and the entire Earth surface, the global temperature fluctuates from year to year. You can't see a trend on the scale of a year. You have to look on the scale of decades.

    All the best,

    O

    ReplyDelete