The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists

Originally posted by seenitall
The conspiracy about climate change is non-existent.

I'm not going to bother educating you all. It is very easy to find information on the viewpoints to which you subscribe, so you wont bother to look further.

When the world begins to change, you can also claim it is a cycle.

Its like an argument with a religious extremist, you can't win. 'Its the will of God' - 'Its a natural cycle', same turd different stink.
..........

Actually the "debating religious fanatics" is trying to debate the AGW fanatics... No amount of evidence, not even when the main proponents were found to have produced false data, and posted false information... Not even knowing they rigged the data AND THEY ADMITTED TO HAVE DONE SO yet you want to claim "it is not part of a natural cycle"?....

You better look at your claims to see who is debating based on BELIEF, and "WHAT FEELS GOOD" instead of what the evidence, and nature itself says....

So have you ever looked at the greenhouse gas concentrations in ppm since the industrial revolution? Have you compared this to historical states?

Oh yeah, its fake because you deny climate change.

I refuse to use the term global warming.

The climate models err on the conservative side.

95% vs 5% of scientists on the issue... The media wants 'balanced' opinion however.

IPCC is not the be all and end all.

Part of the thing I hate about the media and ATS in general is that there is a very very very low understanding of scientific procedure. The IPCC is not the 'bible' as some would have you believe.

Maybe if I have time I will make my own post, however I'm not so sure its worth it with the lack of objectivity that is characteristic of this forum.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by seenitall]

Zhang, L 2010, ‘Intercontinental transport of air pollution’, Frontiers of environmental science and engineering in China, vol. 4, pp. 20-29.

McLeroy, MB 2010, ‘Challenge of global climate change: prospects for a new energy paradigm’, Frontiers of environmental science and engineering in China’, vol. 4, pp. 2-11.

Shahbazi, F, Jafarzadeh, AA, Sarmadian, F et al. 2010, ‘Climate change impact on biodiversity deficiency, using microLEIS in Ahar soils, Iran’, Journal of agricultural science and technology, vol. 12, pp. 191-201.

Pang, HX, He, YQ, Zhang, NN, Li, ZX, Theakstone, WH 2010, ‘Observed Glaciohydrological Changes in China's Typical Monsoonal Temperate Glacier Region since 1980s’, Journal of Earth Science, vol. 21, pp. 179-188.

Lu, AG, Kang, SC, Li, ZX, Theakstone, WH, ‘Altitude Effects of Climatic Variation on Tibetan Plateau and Its Vicinities’, Journal of Earth Science, vol. 21, pp. 189-198.

Lee, CY, Liew, PM 2010, ‘Late Quaternary vegetation and climate changes inferred from a pollen record of Dongyuan Lake in southern Taiwan’, Palaeogeography palaeoclimatology palaeoecology, vol. 287, pp. 58-66.

Probably not the best references but a start from a few quick searches.

The climate is changing in an unpredictable manner, and to say that we have no effect on the globe is ridiculous.

Please note than none of these papers have anything to do with IPCC or your god Al Gore.

Its called political hijacking.

You can contribute to the stereotype of scientific elitism, or you can spend some time to actually understand how it works.

TBH I wouldn't be surprised if behind closed doors Al Gore was actually of the same opinion of the deniers.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by seenitall]

i'm very against dumping trash in the ocean and polluting the air, but co2 emissions aren't really doing much to change the climate. co2 isn't a pollutant, it can suffocate you, but that is death from lack of oxygen. argon will do the same thing, i find it funny that bottles of argon at the shop have a warning saying "argon can cause rapid suffocation".

yeah lets abscond all blame of our reckless pollution of the planet on scientists making up data.
You people are so bloody stupid.

signed A. "cleverer than you" Scientist.

Why do people not get global warming/climate change? Why fight against it so much? I have read the scientific reports and have seen time lapse pictures of glaciers retreating, there is no big conspiracy other than that normal everyday people are easily mislead by large corporations who want to continue to pollute the world and make a buck!

Furthermore while there may be a natural cycle of warming/cooling trends across time it does NOT mean that we are not accelerating/changing those natural trends! The CO2 and pollution we are putting into our environment and our deforestation is impacting earth and these changes along with what may be natural warming trend is causing severe enviromental changes some of which may include increased earthquakes and volcanos!

reply to post by A Novel

I can't provide a list, but one thing that should be addressed up-front for your friends is the fallacy that there is a "consensus" among scientists or that most agree the anthropogenic global warming even exists.

An investigation by Dr Benny Peiser, director, Global Warming Policy Foundation, has revealed that only 13 of the 1,117, or a mere 1 per cent of the scientific papers crosschecked by him, explicitly endorse the consensus as defined by the IPCC. Thus the very basis of the claim of consensus on global warming is false.

The hottest hoax in the world

Even the "pope" of the new faith has asserted that there is no "consensus:"

BBC: When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over,” what exactly do they mean, and what don’t they mean?

Jones: It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well

www.bbc.com...

Even the IPCC "Working Group I," responsible for cross-checking facts and figures, has no real idea about causation:

[T]he 2007 Working Group I report uses the terms “uncertain” or “uncertainty” more than 1,300 times in its 987 pages, including what it identified as 54 “key uncertainties” limiting our mastery of climate prediction.

weeklystandard.com...


Another is the utter fear of outside scrutiny that AGW advocates express. Most every other scientific endeavor INVITES outside testing of theorems, models and hypotheses.

AGW advocates, on the other hand, decry such inquisitiveness as "denialism" as if their word is gospel and any inquiries into methods and means is heresy. This borders on pathological fear and adherence to faith, much as religious extremists refuse to consider legitimate questioning of the bases of their religious tenets.

Legitimate science invites replication and confirmation/disproof:

This was systematically stymied as early as 2004 by the scientific in-charge of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Change Unit. This university was at the epicentre of the ‘research’ on global warming. It is here that Professor Phil Jones kept inconvenient details that contradicted climate change claims out of reports.

The second pillar of science is that by its very nature, science is impersonal. There is no ‘us’, there is no ‘them’. There is only the quest. However, in the entire murky non-scientific global warming episode, if anyone was a sceptic he was labelled as one of ‘them’. At the very apex, before his humiliating retraction, Pachauri had dismissed a report by Indian scientists on glaciers as “voodoo science”.

The third pillar of science is peer group assessment. This allows for validation of your thesis by fellow scientists and is usually done in confidence. However, the entire process was set aside by the IPCC while preparing the report. Thus, it has zero scientific value.

The fact that there was dissent within the climate science teams that some people objected to the very basis of the grand claims of global warming, did not come out through the due process. It came to light when emails at the Climate Research Centre at East Anglia were hacked in November 2009.

It is from the hacked conversations that a pattern of conspiracy and deceit emerge. It is a peek into the world of global warming scaremongering—amplify the impact of CO2, stick to dramatic timelines on destruction of forests, and never ask for a referral or raise a contrary point. You were either a believer in a hotter world or not welcome in this ‘scientific fold’.

No other scientific endeavor has EVER scorned outside scrutiny.

Those two points might be a good start for your discussions.

If you want to see an AGW advocate's frank assessment of the science and fear involved in the debate, these articles by Judith Curry of Georgia Tech will answer almost all of your questions.
These are definitely worth consideration by anyone who wants a true assessment of the science:

On the Credibility of Climate Research, Part II: Towards Rebuilding Trust


Curry: On the credibility of climate research

An open letter to graduate students and young scientists in fields related to climate research

jw

[edit on 22-4-2010 by jdub297]

There is also one more cyclical event that could be causing the "Great Warning". According to the ancient Sumerians, there is a Brown Dwarf star (accompanied by several planets) barricading its way into our Solar System at this time and does so every 3600 years or so. It's an old subject on this forum but it can't be ruled out as a potential cause of our earth changes...does anyone else think that Nibiru/Wormwood/Planet X may have something to do with this? I've drawn this conclusion after looking at the evidence. One MAJOR fact is that global warming is not isolated to just our planet in this solar system, the polar caps on mars and jupiter have been recorded as melting also. Scientist have detected in increase in planetary temperatures on pretty much every other planet in our solar system...how do you explain that?

So much ignorance, so little time...

First off, let me address the acidification problem mentioned earlier: Carbonic acid is a relatively weak acid that is only slightly soluble in water at atmospheric pressure. It is indeed formed from carbon dioxide, but only from a small portion of the carbon dioxide absorbed by a body of water, which as already mentioned, isn't much to start with.

If you take a bottle of soda ('Coke' down here )and open it, you will hear a sizzling. As you drink it, there is a pleasant tingling sensation in your mouth. Both of these are due to carbon dioxide and the associated carbonic acid. Carbonated water is created by forcing water to absorb carbon dioxide under elevated pressures. When the pressure is released, as in when the bottle is opened, the carbon dioxide escapes quickly causing the bubbles and 'fizz' effect.

Carbon dioxide is only slightly soluble in water, at a rate of 1.45 g/L at standard temperature/pressure. That means that if the atmosphere were to suddenly contain 100% carbon dioxide,no nitrogen (which currently makes up about 78% of the atmosphere) and no oxygen (which makes up about 20% and would leave no one left to see it since all animal life depends on oxygen to survive), only carbon dioxide, 1.45 grams of the stuff would dissolve into every liter of water exposed to it. The only way to get more to dissolve into the water is to raise the atmospheric pressure.

Using accepted pre-industrial CO2 levels of 280 ppmv, or 0.028% of the atmosphere, that means that water was absorbing about 0.000406g or 0.406 mg of CO2 per liter. Today, of course, we have concentrations of 380 ppmv, or 0.038%. That means that instead of absorbing 0.406mg, a liter of water will absorb about 0.551 mg of CO2, a difference of 145 mg of CO2 per liter of water. The pH of water under both conditions can be calculated, to give the following results:

Pre-industrial CO2 = 280 ppmv = a pH of 5.68
Present level CO2 = 380 ppm = a pH of 5.62

We have, in the course of 100 years, if all of the CO2 increase is attributed to mankind, lowered the pH level of the oceans by 0.06.

Wow...

Of course, that only takes into account carbon dioxide levels. The oceans are acidifying in some areas, and it is now obvious the cause is not CO2. How about sulfuric acid? Unlike CO2, which does not dissociate into the bicarbonate and carbonate ions much, H2SO4 is completely soluble in any amount. Since is is so soluble and dissociates at almost 100%, it is a far, far, far stronger acid. Now where exactly would we get sulfuric acid? how about sulfur content in the fuels?

Diesel fuel for instance, is regulated to 15 ppmv in the US, and similar (sometimes even lower) levels in the EU. China, on the other hand, uses fuels with sulfur levels up to 2000 ppmv as does Brazil (Source). And even worse are some of the regulations for International transportation. The US EPA reports that global fuel requirements on sulfur content in ships is 45,000 ppmv!

So while we sit here arguing about why physics changes when Jim Hansen is involved and how much of an idiot Al Gore Jr. is, we are completely ignoring the actual cause of ocean acidification and instead chasing some CO2 ghost. Way to deny ignorance!

Now, on to the question about how much of a 'greenhouse gas' CO2 really is:

It is a 'greenhouse gas' in that CO2 will absorb and re-emit certain frequencies of infrared radiation. It does so in three narrow absorption bands. Each band correlates to a specific wavelength of radiation, and each wavelength then corresponds to a particular temperature of a blackbody that radiates it. This is how temperatures of different planets are measured indirectly.

According to Wein's Displacement Law, the wavelength emitted by a blackbody is a function of the temperature of that blackbody. The actual equation is

λ = b/T
where b = a constant value of 5.1·10^-3 m·°K

We also know that the absorption spectra bands of carbon dioxide are narrow and centered around 2.7 μm (2.7·10^-6 m), 4.3 μm (4.3·10^-6 m), and 15 μm (15·10^-6 m)[2]. So we can calculate what temperature a blackbody must be at in order to emit radiation that coincides with these absorption bands of carbon dioxide:

At 2.7 μm:

5.1·10^-3 m·°K ÷ 2.7·10^-6 m = 1888°K
1888°K = 1615°C = 2939°F

At 4.3 μm:

5.1·10^-3 m·°K ÷ 4.3·10^-6 m = 1186°K
1186°K = 913°C = 1675°F

At 15 μm:

5.1·10^-3 m·°K ÷ 15·10^-6 m = 340°K
340°K = 67°C = 153°F

So, the energy absorbed by carbon dioxide must come from a blackbody which is at a temperature of 1615°C, 913°C, or 67°C.

You get that? The longest wavelength that CO2 will absorb is from blackbody radiation of a body at 67°C.

So as long as the planet is cooler than 67°C (152°F), CO2 does not act as a greenhouse gas. On Venus, with an estimated surface temperature temperature of 460°C, CO2 would definitely tend to trap heat, but on earth the temperature rarely if ever reaches such extremes... maybe it could trap a little of the heat coming off the Iceland volcano?

Science is more than just listening to Jim Hansen or Al Gore... it is understanding why things work. And trying to demonize CO2 for things it cannot possibly cause within the realm of physics is not science.

TheRedneck

Edit for a couple typos and to add the following sources for the mathematics involved above:

Any Chemistry / Physics textbook written since 1900

[edit on 4/22/2010 by TheRedneck]

Yesterday I was in a store that had a coffee table full of magazines. Picked one up, Mother Jones. Front page screamed IDIOTS! I turn to the article, and it is about how all the people who are denying the 'science' of global warming (fraud) are idiots. They said it best, they are IDIOTS!

[edit on 22-4-2010 by Gregarious]

reply to post by TheRedneck


Zuh?? Where the heck are you getting a value of "5.1·10^-3 m·°K" for b?

Look at your own link for Wien's Displacement Law:

b is a constant of proportionality called Wien's displacement constant, equal to 2.8977685(51)×10−3 m·K

Using that number tells a bit of a different story:

at 15 microns -

T = (2.8977685×10−3 m·K)/15×10−6 m = 193.18 K = -80 °C

So considering you wrote this part in your own words:

So as long as the planet is cooler than 67°C (152°F), CO2 does not act as a greenhouse gas. On Venus, with an estimated surface temperature temperature of 460°C, CO2 would definitely tend to trap heat, but on earth the temperature rarely if ever reaches such extremes... maybe it could trap a little of the heat coming off the Iceland volcano?

Holy crap! Did I just catch TheRedneck himself admitting CO2 is a greenhouse gas on Earth (considering the cutoff temp is actually -80°C and not 67°C)??


And not to kick you while you're down buddy, but there's all sorts of other issues I could nit-pick about your post:

According to Wein's Displacement Law, the wavelength emitted by a blackbody is a function of the temperature of that blackbody.

It actually corresponds to the maximum wavelength emitted. That doesn't mean there aren't still a whole boatload of other frequencies emitted at that temp - only that particular wavelength happens to top the pile.

Also, CO2's absorption band isn't that narrowly centered around 15 microns. As you can see from the following graph - it covers plenty of real estate coinciding with the Earth's thermal output.




Also while we're at it - there's no such thing as °K. It's just kelvins (K). That would be like writing degrees Joule.

Just sayin'

lol, who'd have thunk that IR spectroscopy was so energetic. All those years of doing IR spectroscopy and never once did the instrument melt before my eyes. Crazy.

At least I know I can go play with Pit vipers without worrying about their super-IR-senses leading to nasty bites.

And just how the hell do IR cameras work if we humans need to be emitting at such high level of temperature?

Oh yeah for a human at 300K...

2.897x10^3/300 = 9.65um

And for the earth at a mean of 287K:

2.897x10^-3/287 = 10.09um

Redneck physics sort of sucks methinks. Perhaps it's best left to those with the edumacation. Petard, own, your, hoist, by comes to mind.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
So much ignorance, so little time...

Relax, you've got years left, I would think, to get it all out there. Just maintain the faux air of authoritar and I'm sure the vacuous drones will still follow your siren-like piping.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
.......
Perhaps it's best left to those with the edumacation. Petard, own, your, hoist, by comes to mind.
.........

Well, that surely leaves you out completely. And as always you provide NOTHING of substance, not even one even remotely close intelligent argument to make your case.... All you do, like always, is claim everyone else but you, and the AGW scammers WHO ALREADY CONFESSED, know how atmopheric CO2 is the cause of all the maladies in the world...

It won't be long before you start claiming that it is atmospheric CO2 that causes cancer, autism, and everything in between....

Give it up Al Gore junior, atmospheric CO2 at the levels mankind is releasing DOES NOT CAUSE ANY MASSIVE, OR EVEN SIGNIFICANT WARMING, and neither is it going to make all the oceans acid....

Originally posted by mc_squared
...........
Also, CO2's absorption band isn't that narrowly centered around 15 microns. As you can see from the following graph - it covers plenty of real estate coinciding with the Earth's thermal output.
.........

and as can be seeing by that graph a large portion of CO2 band absorption is shared with what?... WATER VAPOR...

Do take the advice of Al Gore Junior, aka melatonin, and leave science to those with the mind for it please...

It is a known fact, which none of you AGW fanatics will EVER CHANGE, that in the atmospheric layer of Earth where ALL surface weather occurs, and which affects surface temperatures, it is WATER VAPOR which happens to be the main, and mayor greenhouse gas on Earth's Troposphere, and constitutes about 95% -98%, or even possibly more, of the greenhouse effect on Earth. Meanwhile every other gas, which includes CO2 constitute the other 2% - 5% or less of the greenhouse effect. then you have to take into account that these are ESTIMATES, not that the AGWers know what that means which of course to them it doesn't matter if these are only estimates.

A question for the AGW fanatics, and Al Gore Junior, aka melatonin... Why is it that atmospheric CO2 has chanced so much throughout Earth's geological record yet there have been many times when temepratures were like at present, and atmospheric CO2 was 12 times higher than now, and at other times with higher atmospheric CO2 on Earth's atmosphere the Earth has experienced Ice Ages instead of "inconcievable heat" like you people claim would happen with higher levels of atmospheric CO2?...

Oh yeah, that's right... atmospheric CO2 causes both Warming, and Cooling when it strikes the mood of the AGWers....

And please don't even dare to claim "it is because the Sun was younger", because when it suits you the Sun does have some impact on climate, and when it it doesn't suit you the Sun is "insignificant"...


[edit on 22-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by mc_squared

Now if that doesn't deserve a star, nothing does! It would appear you caught me in an error.

Unlike certain 'scientists' who I will allow to remain nameless, I can admit when I make a mistake, though... so let's do this again.

Point 1: my error in the value of 'b'

According to Wein's Displacement Law, the wavelength emitted by a blackbody is a function of the temperature of that blackbody. The actual equaltion is

λ = b/T
where b = a constant value of 2.90·10^-3 m·°K

We also know that the absorption spectra bands of carbon dioxide are narrow and centered around 2.7 μm (2.7·10^-6 m), 4.3 μm (4.3·10^-6 m), and 15 μm (15·10^-6 m)[2]. So we can calculate what temperature a blackbody must be at in order to emit radiation that coincides with these absorption bands of carbon dioxide:
At 2.7 μm:

2.90·10^-3 m·°K ÷ 2.7·10^-6 m = 1888°K
1888°K = 1615°C = 1474°F

At 4.3 μm:

2.90·10^-3 m·°K ÷ 4.3·10^-6 m = 674°K
674°K = 401°C = 754°F

At 15 μm:

5.1·10^-3 m·°K ÷ 15·10^-6 m = 193°K
193°K = -80°C = -112°F

So, the energy absorbed by carbon dioxide must come from a blackbody which is at a temperature of 801°C, 401°C, or -80°C.

Now that that little problem is fixed, let's look at the information again. Sure, -80°C is less than 67°C,but it is still outside the normal range of surface temperature on the planet. The calculations may have been incorrect, but they still bear out the same conclusion when corrected: the absorption bands of CO2 are outside the normal range of temperatures for the Earth.

At least it's not the Iceland volcano's fault any more.

(And yes, I am aware that the record low temperature is about -89°C in the Antarctic... I am talking about 'normal' temperature ranges.)


Point 2: Wein's Displacement Law gives the maximum frequency, not the absolute frequency.

Actually, this is a bit of a misnomer. The maximum wavelength referred to is not the longest wavelength, but the wavelength most prevalent in those emitted. Maximum refers to maximum occurrence. Of course there will be other frequencies emitted, since any object does not have every molecule in it at the same temperature, but the amount of radiation drops off quickly as the deviation from the center (maximum occurrence) frequency increases.

That means that it makes no difference whether the absorption bands are above or below the surface temperatures... it is the deviation in temperature that matters.


Point 3: The width of the absorption band

I'm not really sure where you dug up that graphic, but it identifies the peak frequency of the planet as corresponding to 255°K, which is -18°C or 0°F. I find that hard to believe... If one takes the average of the warmest and coldest temperatures ever recorded, the result is a little above that... -16°C or 4°F. Considering that the warmest areas of the planet are along the equator, which dwarfs the colder areas such as the poles in area, it seems highly unlikely that the center frequency corresponds to -18°C.

There is no argument from me that raising CO2 levels in itself will cause some effect on heat retention from the atmosphere. The argument is not qualitative, but quantitative.


Point 4: There's no such thing as °K

Yep, you're right. It's an old (and admittedly incorrect) habit, from years ago when I was studying such things in school and apparently before the conversion to simply K (or perhaps my professor just had the same habit?).

In any case, that's obviously a wonderful reason to dismiss an entire post. If you need another reason, I actually drive a pickup truck too...

TheRedneck

Edit: darn typos....

[edit on 4/22/2010 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by melatonin

Please, mel, save your insults for someone who cares. You showed your true colors some time back when you couldn't grasp the concept of carbon sequestration... or when I called you on the availability of funding for something that has already been invented years ago.

At least mc_squared has called me on a specific point.

TheRedneck

reply to post by defcon5


An f250 pickup is better for the environment then a prius.

Apparently, when considering how "good" (or bad) a car is for the environment, gas mileage is one of the last factors to weigh. It's actually the production of the car that matters. The raw materials' sources, the manufacturing effort, and the shipping costs all have an impact on the environment. And apparently, those of the Toyota Prius are not having a positive impact.

This is based on a CNW Marketing Research report called "Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles From Concept to Disposal." But I thought the Prius was supposed to be great for the environment. It can get up to 60 miles per gallon of gas (though Toyota officials admit that most users will get more like 45 mpg on the highway).

The Prius' battery contains nickel, which is mined in Ontario Canada. The plant that smelts this nickel is apparently nicknamed "the Superstack" because of the amount of pollution it puts out; the area for miles around it is a wasteland because of acid rain and air pollution.(there is no life in this area in fact they tested the rover they were sending to mars here because there was nothing there thus simulating mars.

That smelted nickel then has to travel (via container ship) to Europe to be refined, then to China to be made into "nickel foam," then to Japan for assembly, and finally to the United States. All this shipment for each tiny step in the production process costs a great deal, both in dollars and in pollution.

The study then concludes that -- all the production costs in mind -- the Prius costs about $3.25 per mile and is expected to last about 100,000 miles. The Hummer, on the other hand, with all the same factors counted, costs about $1.95 per mile and is expected to last about 300,000 miles

So feel your protecting the environment by driving a hybrid truth is go buy the hummer!!!

Whatever - read a book - we are all absolutely stuffed - end of story. The reality is we need to decrease carbon to 350 ppm - IPCC is wrong. This is not going to happen, we are going to face run away climate change and temperatures well and truly in the kill range within 10 years. Special thanks to people like RedNeck and Electric Universe for doing their very best to destroy humanity - some people seem to know no boundaries to their depravity........

It is - without doubt - the greatest crime ever committed.

reply to post by audas

Special thanks to people like RedNeck and Electric Universe for doing their very best to destroy humanity - some people seem to know no boundaries to their depravity........

Wow, to think ElectricUniverse and I single-handedly destroyed humanity by posting facts on an Internet forum... oh, such power we wield...

I love the drama... you forgot the part about us clubbing baby seals...

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
.............
Unlike certain 'scientists' who I will allow to remain nameless, I can admit when I make a mistake, though... so let's do this again.
..........

C'mon Redneck, you, several other members and I know that Al Gore Junior, aka melatonin is not scientist at all... He likes to pose as one thou, but fails miserably every time... All he does is insult, and claim every REAL scientist who know what he/she is talking about is an "oil kook"... What a douchebag....