Thursday, January 29, 2009

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

Here is a great article written by the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, and where man-made global warming hysteria began.

The main question he asks and then answers is this: How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?


Jackie said...

I've heard that our climate is acutally getting colder. Have you heard that? Is it true?

Red State Time said...

Yep, since 1998, temps have slowly decreased and are almost back to levels of the early nineties.

Dash RIPROCK III said...

Gore is a complete loser. This last election was an I.Q. test for America and we scored a little higher than a turtle.

While American's will allow a liberal to be president every few elections, socialism will not be tolerated. I'm sure I speak for a lot of people when I say that these country club liberals don't hate the CO2 industry produces as much as industry and capitalism itself.

Here is a must see movie for anyone who wants to learn the truth about Al Gore's lies:

John P. Reisman said...

John Coleman is attempting to represent opinion as science. That's not the way it works. Here is my rebuttal to Mr. Coleman's latest:

Rebuttal to John Coleman

And a bit about the myths:

Global Warming Myths

As far as the temps decreasing, that is inline with natural variability and the current solar minimum. The solar Schwabe cycle is 11.1 years. We should be near solar maximum in about 5 to 6 years again.

Red State Time said...

Welcome to the blog! I hope that you find it useful for you. Obviously I disagree with your post for numerous reasons, especially the link for trying to debunk "myths". I have a link for you as well

Please visit that site. Actually spend some time there and watch and read. If after you have observed things from an opposing viewpoint and you still come to the same conclusions, I would love to have that discussion then.

John P. Reisman said...

Myopic examinations rarely produce a view of the dynamics of the whole.
The majority of the links on the page you mention are from media sources. Media left and right is 100% commercial, they don't thrive on answered questions, they thrive generally on controversy and debate.

Science does not work that way. Science is conservative, not liberal.

Science tests , looks are what might be wrong with the picture, retests, repeats, duplicates, reexamines, etc. There is doubt and uncertainty, conclusions and possibilities; and rarely a solid 100% conclusion. Sometimes you can get to 90% or even better. Sometimes you can get pretty close to 100% and state with strong conviction. Gravity is a good one in that respect.

Context and relevance are key, Many of the points on the page look correct, and some even are but facts out of context have little to do with the bigger picture of holistically considered perspective.

Unfortunately climate is complex, but it is well understood at this point. Even though we don't know all the little details we do know the major forcings.

The page points out UAH MHU Satellite readings, but those were already found to be incorrect by NASA.

The page points out UHI effect but those considerations and aberrations are already calculated in the NASA models and removed.

Lindzen and Christy have been proven to be myopic in their general perspectives, though also proven correct in some circumstances, but often based on facts out of context or incorrect data.

You have Milloy in your own profile and he is quite a piece of work. I am not a big fan of lawyers and their obfuscative ways. He knows nothing of the science and a lot about bias and argument crafting. He is great at word crafting and deceptive practice. I did an article about him you might want to review

Milloy - Word Play

If you want to know about global warming go to web sites that deal with the science and the policy based on the science, there you get more concise relevance.

Global Warming Summary Links

Skeptic sites tend to always take single bits of data out of context, which of course destroys the relevance of their argument, but that lack of relevance is not easily recognizable unless you are already familiar with the real context.

A perfect example of facts out of context is this quote on the page in reference

American Geophysical Union:

QUOTE (American Geophysical Union - 2007)
"With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty..."

But the sentence is cut off? Why? Here is the short context:

"With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections. "

PPT File on Global Warming with sentence in question

So yes, there is uncertainty and based on the evidence; it looks like it could be worse than previously thought. This is quite the opposite of the inference as illustrated by the poster of that piece.

And does the AGU think global warming is not human caused? Read for yourself:

American Geophysical Union Position on Global Warming

The manner of the presentation on the page in reference is inappropriate and out of context, thus the relevance is destroyed (not scientific). However, the reader does not know that. They are left to believe that the AGU thinks there is too much uncertainty to say global warming is human caused by connotation of the usage. This is purely deceitful though.

This site gives you a few myth arguments placed in context.

Global Warming Myths

Are there holes in these points? Let me know and I will find the relevant context to understand them.


Red State Time said...

MR Reisman,
I have also looked at your site and what you feel is correct. I see that you use a completely debunked hockey stick graph and is actually left out of subsequent IPCC reports. You state that my items have been debunked, but by whom? You say Lindzen and Christy are incorrect. Why? They have been debunked by people pushing the AGW theory.

Explain to me how, when all the models were based on weather readings, the Urban Island Heat Bloom has been factored in. Tell me how you can base your understanding on data proven to be incorrect?

Then explain the 31,000 scientists who have signed the petition stating that at a minimum, we cannot state with accuracy that humans are affecting climate? Many of them are/were IPCC scientists that have come to the conclusion that the data was tainted, the findings in the summary politically driven and the results unsound?

Why is it that when people state that the science is settled, that scientists feel it really isn't?

Why do you discount the last 10yrs of cooling as "weather" but think that 30yrs of warming is "climate".

Red State Time said...

Here Mr Reisman,
debunk this video on urban heat island

John P. Reisman said...

My site(s) pertaining to the topic of climate science is/are not about what I feel is correct. It is about the relevant science and contexts.

Every argument you mention is well addressed in my rebuttal to the original John Coleman piece (all links to corrections and assessments included).

John Coleman Claims

The Hockey stick after the MM adjustments mentioned in the congressional report were statistically insignificant. I know this because I spoke with the scientist that did the assessment and it turns out that the hockey stick is the most reviewed piece of science in the history of peer review and peer response. It is still a hockey stick and was not removed from the IPCC report. It is still in the IPCC report. It is not in the new reports because it is already in the old reports and does not need to be repeated.

Scientists are conservative, not liberals. They don't need to retrace old ground without reason or cause.

If you go to the Coleman link above and do a word search for the subjects you are asking about you will find that it addresses the Hockey Stick, Lindzen, Christy, UHI effect, zillions of scientists signing a document that has nothing to do with relevant science etc.

I was just at the IPCC/WMO in Geneva two weeks ago and they are amazed that people don't understand that the science of AGW pertaining to this global warming event is sound, well understood science. They don't understand why so many people are confusing the issues.

The Swiss are the most conservative people on the planet as a whole, they simply look at unreasonable people and think, interesting. Which is actually an insult in Swiss. But they are right, people are simply ignoring the relevant science and contexts due to a distinct lack of understanding.

On the subject of science being settled, it's never settled completely, but it is often settled enough to know with relative certainty what the influences are. That is why no one questions gravity anymore. It's relatively settled science.

I don't actually discount the last ten years, I look at them in perspective. The temperature peak occurred during the inertia phase of the last Schawabe cycle coming off the solar maximum which generated the largest El Nino event in our modern history. The reason that occurred is because the el nino was riding on top of the AGW path within the natural variability range. The other reason is that NASA defines climate as a 30 year trend and other things fall into natural variability and weather.

NASA Weather v. Climate

That does not mean that weather is not related to climate as it certainly is, but all things must be considered to understand the relevance. We simply don't attribute singular events to climate unless trend over time is established.

We are at solar minimum now, so we are still coming off the solar maximum inertia in the variability range and the Schwabe 11.1 year cycle. We can expect reasonably that we will be at solar maximum again in around 6 years or so.

Regarding the video link above re UHI, they did a good job and gave decent context to the analysis. But it is still out of context to the GMT. First you need to understand that US temperatures do not represent global temperatures. Regional is not global same as weather is not climate.

Their conclusions state that they are measuring rural US v. Urban US temps in selected locations. That is appropriate for the limited context, but that does not mean it is representative of the global mean.

To understand the data even better though I suggest learning more about NASA modeling and the UHI. The data needs to compensate for UHI and that is built into the climate model. That way the UHI does not reduce the understanding of the data demonstrably.

No man is an (Urban Heat) Island - July 2007

Urban Heat Island Effect (”UHIE”) - Nov 2004

Red State Time said...

How can you discount the effect that heat island effect has on the data? Where are the majority of the weather stations used?

But let say the stations are good. Here are the revised 10 hottest years per the GISS.

1. 1934
2. 1998
3. 1921
4. 2006
5. 1931
6. 1999
7. 1953
8. 1990
9. 1938
10. 1939

Where is the warming? As you can see, most of those #'s are before your precious CO2 increases.

As for your "models" which is what most of the hysteria around AGW is concerned, I could post you link after link that shows the problems with modeling and the inherit biases involved. Here are just some of the errors that have been found in the current modeling being pushed by the IPCC and NASA/Goddard

- Clouds
- Convection
- Cosmic Rays
- Eastern Boundary Regions of the Oceans
- El Nino
- Evaporation
- Macroturbulence
- Mountain Range Circulation
- Multi-Decadal Variability
- Near-Surface Temperatures at Night
- Precipitation
- Regional Climate Change
- Seasonal Variability
- Spatial Variations in Geothermal Heat
- Stratosphere Climate Change
- Transfer of Solar Radiation in the Atmosphere
- Tropical Troposphere Temperatures
- Upper Tropospheric Humidity

Red State Time said...

As for your comments on the "hockey stick", here is what the National Academy of Sciences had to say on it:

Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" [...]

Prior to about 1600, ...periods of medieval warmth are seen in a number of diverse records, including historical information from Europe and Asia; cave deposits; marine and lake sediments; and ice cores from Greenland, Ellesmere Island, Tibet, and the equatorial Andes. [...]

Using proxies sensitive to hydrologic variables (including moisture-sensitive trees...) to take advantage of observed correlations with surface temperature could lead to problems [...]

For tree ring chronologies, the process of removing biological trends from ringwidth data potentially obscures information on long-term changes in climate. [...]

Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse ...set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia"

John P. Reisman said...

The links I gave you explain how the UHI is handled.

The majority of weather stations are northern hemisphere. Many disciplines are used to model climate though and it is imperfect. In fact I'm quite certain it will always be imperfect. We may be able to get closer but never perfect.

As far as the 10 hottest years, the numbers you are using I believe are the 10 hottest years for the US, not the 10 hottest years for the planet in modern times. Again, regional is not global. The temperature in your backyard does not represent all the backyards on the earth.

As far as models go, I have heard people say that models can be wrong. That is incorrect. Models are always wrong. That's because they are models, they are not real.

Models are Always Wrong

You correctly point out the many challenges in modeling and measuring everything from clouds, evaporation, etc. but that does not mean that we don't have a general idea of what is going on. It will never be perfect as I mentioned. We just need to know approximately what to expect. To do it without models we would need a few extra planets exactly like earth so we could try some atmospheric experiments with different mixes of greenhouse gasses in each one. Unfortunately we don't have that luxury of experimentation, so we rely on models.

Re the Hockey Stick:

House Committee on Energy and Commerce Testimony July 27, 2006

Also, the quote you are referring to is out of context. The NAS was confirming that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium".

About the MWP The influence of the Arctic Amplification effect is still not a global temperature. The Mann temperature reconstruction still holds as valid representation.

Medieval Warm Period

As far as moisture sensitivity, the knowledge of paleo temperatures is a multidisciplinary scientific endeavor. I just had a meeting recently with a climate scientist and we were discussing the challenges of understanding moister increase in a quantifiable way. It's is a very challenging area because H2o is not a well mixed GHG like Co2, CH4, or N20 as well as the other Hi-GWP gases (flourines).

Here are a couple links to give you an idea of what we know and what we don't know (mind you the OSS site is still in the works so I will add additional relevant materials as able. as it stands, it has some good stuff on it but needs a lot more to deal with additional contexts).

Here is what we know

Here is what we don't know

Your information in your last paragraph is generally correct. The northern hemisphere MWP event was warmer that the rest of the world for a short period of time (geologically speaking) and the little ice age did occur after that event. But the global meant temperature was not higher then than now. Again, regional is not global.

Red State Time said...

Tell me something John, why is it that when you post a link, it is the truth, but when I post a link stating something, you state it is junk or misplaced? Why is your site credible? How is the links I provided not?

You state quite specifically that models are alway wrong. So if that is the case, why are on Earth would we want to commit our economy and our well being to something like that?

Why is it that the countries that have signed the Kyoto Protocol increased their CO2 productions since becoming signatories? And please don't blame the fact that the US has not signed it. Kyoto left out the 2 main pollutants, China and India, so how could you blame the US (if you do)?

Is climate linear? If not, how can you predict it? How many variables would be in those predictions?

Could there be a possibilty that maybe the main players in this have an agenda? Did Hansen from NASA receive grant funds from the Heinz Foundation?

Could there be climate change and it not be caused by humans? Has ther always been climate change? Can you say with a certainty that it is caused by humans?

Could the hot '90s have been caused by solar activity?

Most importantly, why are the IPCC summaries so different from the actual work? Who writes the summaries? If they are written by politicians, why would the report not be politicized?

John P. Reisman said...

You have posted two links so far one of them was full of media sources and articles and well known arguments that have some facts taken out of context which draw incorrect assertions. And one to a youTube video that was very nicely done as far as representing some US temperatures stations in relation to the UHI effect but not explaining the context of how NASA models aberrations in order to increase the accuracy of the data from the measurements, and subsequently apply it to the GMT.

Generally, I'm not talking about absolutes, which you seem to be alluding to. When you say truth, you are speaking of an absolute. I am generally talking about what we are more confident in, or less confident in, based on the science. As I said we can get reasonably clear about some things. The major forcings are well understood as well as the natural cycle. Therefore it is fairly easy to compare and contrast the two and identify the industrial forcing components in relation to the natural forcing components.

The information you have presented has some facts in it, but facts out of context are not relevant or germane to the discussion. Therefore inconsequential. To answer your question why might my perspectives on the matters at hand be likely more correct than yours, yours (based on what you have shown me and what you are saying/asking) are based on conjecture or facts out of context presented by individuals and groups well known as sources that take facts out of context. This is 'scientifically' known.

It's the difference between liberal views and conservative views. Those that believe in conjecture and opinion, or facts taken out of context, and spun to misrepresent reality, are liberal views. Those based on the conservative nature of scientific method are more trustworthy and conservative in method and result.

One just has to decide if they wish to be conservative or liberal. You seem to choose to be liberal, which I find odd, since you claim to be a conservative?

I trust the conservative nature of science and the scientific method. I do not trust the liberal nature of conjecture and opinion, or facts out of context. Liberal in this context means playing fast and loose with the facts, contexts and relevance of said contexts. I find such 'opinion' harder to accept that the conservative science.

You have already illustrated a classic example of a liberal view when you posted the following:

As for your comments on the "hockey stick", here is what the National Academy of Sciences had to say on it:

Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" [...]

But that is a quote out of context and therefore a lie.

The conservative reality based on the relevant context is not a lie:

The NAS has stated: "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium".

The conservative nature of science does not lie or take things out of context on purpose and mistakes are quickly corrected in the face on relevant contravening scientific reasoning. The liberal nature of belief, opinion, conjecture, guessing, wishing, hoping, spinning to favor a view rather than facts in context, or just plain believing in something because it favors an emotion or an agenda, is not conservative, or based in scientific method.

Is climate linear? No. But your question has no context and therefore no conclusions can be drawn from my answer. I suppose you are attempting to set up a straw man argument with this and your other questions; so when I say no, or likewise agree with your other straw man arguments, then you will, say see, the climate has changed in the past, and is not linear and there could be agendas and, it is solar, and, and, and; But straw man arguments are not science they are political. Therefore they are of no consequence to the points at hand regarding AGW.

Can you predict it, Yes. General trends can be predicted in climate, unlike weather which is largely unpredictable other than short term trends such as winter is colder than summer, etc.

Why is it that ... increased Co2... Kyoto. Best to ask them. Money and power, historically has been the reason behind such things.

As far as blaming the US. Here is a record of Co2 emissions.

Environmental Protection Agency

The US has cumulatively put more Co2 in the atmosphere than other countries. But then to blame India and China because they are producing more is interesting, because we are the consumers of their products. Basically we are all in this together but the US is factually, quantifiably, absolutely historically, the largest producer of Co2 form industrial means. This is not in dispute in scientific circles, but it is in dispute in political arenas.

Hansen won a prize from the Heinz Foundation for his work in 2001. It should not surprise you that he won a prize for doing a good job on the science. It is not abnormal for scientists to win prizes for doing good work. I think some would like to politicize something like that, but it would be incorrect. My understanding of Dr. Hansen is that he is quite conservative in his work and his nature (which is that of a scientist, generally speaking).

Climate has been changing for millions of years, to say otherwise would be beyond silly. But what does this question have to do with 'this global warming event'? Nothing. We have departed from the Natural Cycle.

Natural Cycle

Can I say with certainty this global warming event is human caused with a very high degree of certainty. Yes.

"When protons from GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays) collide with the nitrogen-14 (seven protons plus seven neutrons in the nucleus) in the air, carbon-14 is created (in addition to other isotopes such as beryllium-10) through a nuclear reaction:

14N + p → 14C + n

This means that carbon with a low isotope carbon-14 ratio must come from deep in the ground, out of reach of cosmic rays.

Furthermore, the ratio of O2 to N2 has diminished. This is expected from the increased combustion of fossil fuels, in which O2 combines with C to form CO2. The oceans have also become more acidic, leading to an increase in CO2 levels in both the atmosphere and the oceans."

I don't know whom you mean by 'main players'? Do you mean climate scientists? That's like asking dentists that fix peoples teeth if they have an agenda to fix teeth. Odd question.

Could the hot 90's have been caused by solar activity. Yes. I would attribute .2 W/m2 directly to solar activity. But that does not account for the other 1.4 W/m2 that were in play due to GHG increases outside of the natural cycle. So only in part based on the percentage of solar forcing applied. But even that is still an oversimplification. The hot 90's as you say it were extraordinary in some respects because the added solar forcing was already riding on top of the leading edge of the global warming wave. Sort of like a kid on top of his dads shoulders can see more from the added height.

IPCC summaries written by scientists? Go to their web site and look it up. What are you talking about when you say the summaries are different from the actual work? The question is vague. Do yo have specific examples, and what are the contexts? Check your sources.

To reiterate on the my data v. your data. It's not my data. It comes from the United States Government. The information you have shown me is generally media or group generated (groups with political ties and agendas) , or belief generated (some people apparently think global warming is about beliefs, not science). Opinion using facts out of context is not science, it is silly.

Red State Time said...

Unlike you John, I do a little more digging before I am ready to commit this country to the biggest socialization we have ever seen because of a claim of man-made global warming. And in doing so, I am the real conservative. I don't believe arguments on unsettled science, when climate/environmental sciences have proven to be VERY wrong in the past.

I am also not the head of political party with membership of one, so you will have to bear with this follower.

You discuss where you get your info from and how mine is from media sources. Well, here are some sources that aren't media driven that differ from yours:

From the US Senate-

From a professor of atmospheric science-

From a climatologist/NASA scientist-

From a PhD in climatology-

Or this one on the 35 errors in the movie "An Inconvient Truth" (9 of which were declared by a court in the UK)-

Or this one on how CO2 trails warming (I have numerous ones on this subject and it shows it occurred all the way up to 1999)-

Or this one about non USA weather stations-

Or this one on how we should not believe the models (many more as well)-

An article from MIT written about the problems with the hockey stick graph-

Or this one from the NOAA on the Astronomical theory on climate change-

Or this one on a 1500 year climate cycle-

Or this one from NASA on solar trends-

Now I know what you are going to try to do. You are going to try to say something like these guys aren't relevant or trying to disprove. I have hundreds of links written by the same type and all well respected. But the point that I am trying to make is that the real conservative will not bankrupt his country chasing things like this because of a "crisis". He would wait until you could PROVE these things instead of "model" them.

Red State Time said...

It's a funny thing the internet. You can do a lot of things. Like find out who operates certain websites. Guess who I found to be the owner of the OSS site. John Reisman. So, your whole argument has been using that site for info to debunk mine.

So, just like all of you other people who are pushing this massive fraud, your pushing ends here. That's another great thing about the internet. You can't control the truth any longer. the truth will get out. Your fraud will lose in the end. Just like your Centrist Party of one.