"The Great Global Warming Swindle" documentary. 6

[Compositepro]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ

A colleague just told me about this documentary that was originally shown on BBC in 2007. I found it very interesting, and still relevant and not dated. I do not care to argue the subject myself as there are many people more eloquent, and with more time to do research and produce documentaries. People like Al Gore, et al .

 

[IDS]

If you don't care to argue the subject yourself, why post a link to a video full of assertions that have been widely debunked?

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services

http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

 

[hokie66]

Thanks for posting the link, Compositepro. I found it quite compelling. Like you, I am no climate scientist, and have not done the research necessary to effectively argue about climate change. It would be good to have an update from the scientists named in this documentary.

IDS, "widely debunked" is one description, but I think the scientists in the film being "attacked as heretics" is more truthful.

 

[zdas04]

IDS,
I just watched the video again, and I don't see any of the "widely debunked" assertions. I see a lot of interviews with some highly credentialed individuals (including many that are still on the IPCC list of 2500 scientists) that all say "the data does not support the theory", "the hysteria supports tens of thousands of jobs", "polar bears survived the Medieval Warm period, they are highly adaptable creatures", etc.

Could you cite examples of these "widely debunked" assertions?

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[RVAmeche]

The name of this forum is "Climate Change Solutions". Can we make a new forum or change the name of this one if it's just going to be used to promote skepticism?

 

[zdas04]

RVAmeche,
Interesting position.
[ul]
[li]Would it not be a "solution" to "Climate Change" to begin treating the field the same way as every other scientific hypotheses in the history of man?[/li]
[li]Wouldn't it be a "solution" to accept that weather balloon and satellite data independently show that while the ACC hypotheses predicts warmer temperatures in the troposphere than on the surface the exact opposite is observed in every single data sample? Every one of them.[/li]
[li]Wouldn't it be a "solution" to stop manipulating the weather dataset to make it validate a particular hypotheses?[/li]
[/ul]

These all sound like "solutions" to me.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[RVAmeche]

zdas,

It's impossible to discuss this subject with someone like yourself because you deny the science. This forum should be dedicated to actual good engineering practices in the light of new data and predictions, not covering your ears and screaming because you disagree with the rest of the world.
[ul]
[li]Among climatologists (you know, those people who study this topic for years) there is unquestionably no debate about climate change. Any argument about "scientists not agreeing" is related to other scientists (such as botanists or physicist) with varying degrees of disapproval. The amount of other scientists who refute climate change is still very small.[/li]
[li]You talk about treating the field the same as every other scientific field yet you refuse to defer to the SME in that field. It's truly a baffling position.[/li]
[li]As mentioned above, there is a scientific consensus that climate change is happening. Every international scientific body concurs. You refuse to accept this.[/li]
[li]The rest of your points boil down to "big science is coming to get us". That's not a solution, it's putting your head in the sand. It's your right to do so, but other people (and indeed, the world) will continue to evaluate how to deal with the new environment.[/li]
[li]When standards and regulations begin to be updated to reflect the new data what do you, as an engineer, presume we do? Surely we should just build structures that don't meet the new standards and regulations because of the global political conspiracy to make engineers' lives more difficult.[/li]
[/ul]

 

[IRstuff]

"ACC hypotheses predicts warmer temperatures in the troposphere than on the surface the exact opposite is observed in every single data sample"

That's only if you look at the raw tropospheric data without accounting for the cooling bias from the stratosphere that is predicted by ACC.

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=303

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<3650:AROTMC>2.0.CO;2

https://atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/nature.fu.2004a.pdf

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[hokie66]

IRstuff,
That sort of issue is why I would like to hear from these scientists again. And why the carbon dioxide level lags behind the temperature rise. And how the climate changes now differs from the Medieval
Warm Period or the Little Ice Age.

RVAmeche,
I suppose you didn't watch the video. Those scientists are indeed climate experts, and they made a good case, at least in 2007, that the IPCC reports were driven by money and politics. If you just want to stick to the "consensus" or "97%" argument, you are just continuing the mob pile on.

 

[zdas04]

RVAMeche,
"People like me" also claimed the Eugenics was junk science. In fact "People like me" have led to every advancement in man's knowledge throughout time. People like me look at data. People like me look at reality without spin. It actually is impossible to discuss fabricated data and manipulated computer models with "people like me" without getting considerable push back. "Belief is the acceptance of a concept in the absence of data". You are welcome to your beliefs, but please don't call them rational.
[ul]
[li]"Climatologists" are members of a field called "Climate Science". In my estimation, if you have to call it "science" then it isn't. The field of study is globally broad. When you map solar activity to temperatures you see a good correlation--so astrophysicists should keep their dilettante mouths shut? I would really like to see the basis for your assertion that "The amount of other scientists who refute climate change is still very small." I think you just made it up from whole cloth.[/li]
[li]Defer to the Subject Matter Experts (I'm assuming that that is what you mean by "SME")? Did you watch the video? Department heads at NASA, NOAA, MIT, Cambridge, etc. talked at length about the bastardization of their field, about the overt and covert manipulation of the science (I really like the guy who said "if you want a grant to study how squirrels store nuts you have to say 'The impact of Global Warming on the ability of squirrels to store nuts', if you leave out the opening phrase you don't get funded").[/li]
[li]Read my signature--"consensus" is a dirty word in science when it is used to deflect legitimate investigation.[/li]
[li]I don't put words in your mouth, why do you insist on putting words in mine? The statement "big science is coming to get us" is so far from my position that I can't see it from here.[/li]
[li]I have written many of the API's responses to EPA regulations on this subject. When bad regulations are promulgated based on made-up nonsense and the anti-human position of the e-NGO's, engineers have a obligation to shout from the rooftops that the "Emperor has no clothes".[/li]
[/ul]

IRStuff,
The first article says (in essence) that "if you multiply the data times zero and add the 'right' answer you validate ACC".

The second article says "Yes, my Nintendo game actually does prove that Princess Peach can ride a Dinosaur".

I read the third one three times and have absolutely no idea what the point is, I've rarely read a document with less regard for the audience understanding the thesis. It is rambling, disjointed and argues every side of all of the issues it brings up.

Data is data. Data that has been "adjusted" for temperature loss to the stratosphere is "output", not "input". There are as many of these output data sets as there are climate models and they are all different.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[rb1957]

I forget where I read/heard it but does it make sense to talk about a global average temperature ?

If this is a sensible measure (of anything) can we measure it accurately ? I think satellites give us the best measurements but only over the last 30-40 years.

Should we burn FFs like there's no tomorrow ? My belief is that ACC grew out of the "green" movement, ie to create a big stick to get people to change their behaviours. My belief is that we should control/restrict burning FFs and we should probably think about how we obtain them (eg is fracking a good idea ?, good for the environment ?? is extracting oil from tar sands a good idea ?). I would support increasing the number of nuclear PPs (and, yes, there is one in my backyard); I think some of the newer designs seriously address the biggest problems (ie waste, weapons-grade fuel). But how much money are we going to throw at this "problem", or this "solution" ?

Do we have the moral right to impose our decisions on other peoples ? I think it makes sense to look on FFs as a step along the road to our modern world; now we can see further down that road, we don't need to step every step (ie maybe India, China can sidestep the widespread use of FFs and adopt a "better" source). Is there a "better" source ?

Do other peoples (ie 3rd world countries) have the right to impose their decisions on us ?? This is where we do need a consensus ... in the political world, to adopt the agreed strategy as universally as possible.

I wish like all heck we'd invest more in fusion PPs (think what we could do with 1% of the defence budget !).

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[IRstuff]

"Data is data. Data that has been "adjusted" for temperature loss to the stratosphere is "output", not "input". There are as many of these output data sets as there are climate models and they are all different."

Only because you didn't bother to understand the measurement and simply used it for confirmation bias. The microwave emissions that are ostensibly from the troposphere have significant overlap with the stratosphere, which simply means that there is no satellite tropospheric temperature measurement, because you're also measuring part of the stratosphere at the same time. Therefore, the raw data is useless for determining the effects of ACC on the troposphere.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[zdas04]

rb1957,
Calling them "Fossil Fuels" does not change the fact that nature produces hydrocarbons at a very rapid pace. Hydrocarbons that were produced in previous millennia and happened to become trapped in the earth are now called "fossil fuels", but the stuff is being produced by the giga-tonne today. Hydrocarbons will be a component in man's energy mix for as long as man has an energy mix. I don't disagree that nuclear options make a lot of sense, but I was on the wrong side of too many anti-nuc protests to ever be able to feel secure with that direction. Nothing wrong with the technology, but the political will to stay the course seems to be non-existent.

IRStuff,
I do actually understand the measurement. I've written peer-reviewed papers on the subject. Many of my writings on the subject have been made part of the Congressional Record. I understand measurement. I understand that the raw, uncorrected satellite data has been used since the 1980's in short-term weather prediction with good results. It is only when "researchers" couldn't reconcile the data with the theory that this horrible "bleed" to the stratosphere became a problem. Short-term weather forecasts still use the actual data. The actual data still matches the weather balloon data, it just doesn't match the ACC theory.

I also understand that it is impossible to measure "temperature". We use the impact of temperature on materials to correlate elongation or expansion of the material to a specific temperature with excellent, repeatable results with very low uncertainty. We use wave-length responses to measure temperature data with good results. Then we have "researchers" who think that "the readings are obviously wrong" and write data-gathering programs that "tweak" the data to account for environmental uncertainty. The algorithms in these programs are not published, and some of them are so old that no one knows what they actually do or what they are correcting for. They just keep on multiplying times zero and adding the "right" answer.

I've seen the stratosphere/troposphere interference discussion before, and it doesn't hold water. The tropospheric data from satellites correlates very well with tropospheric data from weather balloons. Funny, once it has been "corrected" for interference those data sets no longer match up, but the "corrected" satellite data matches the ACC models. Must be a coincidence. Or my "confirmation bias", which of course no one who agrees with ACC exhibits.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[rb1957]

yes, but burning them is adding CO2 to the atmosphere. I made no linkage to this causing CC or proportioning this output to natural sources from a very complicated process (or set of processes). Is adding CO2 to the atmosphere good, bad or indifferent ? My personal feeling is "indifferent", but there's the opportunity for "unintended consequences". I believe we are more aware (today as compared to say 50 years ago) of our impact on the environment, and I think we have developed a sensitivity towards mitigating (or minimising) this impact. I'd like to think most of these actions are positive and successful, some are possibly contrary, some are certainly "pork" (a wasted effort designed to produce some short term publicly funded political outcome). The issue is "how much treasure do we throw at the problem ?". For myself, I liken it to insurance ... how much money do you throw at a possible problem (healthcare) or a certainty (life insurance) ?

does "wrong" (side of anti-nuc protests) mean "against" ? If so, not "wrong", just "other". It is fine that we arrive at different conclusions.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[zdas04]

RB1957,
Sorry, I was unclear. I was a nuclear mechanical operator on a U.S. Navy guided missile frigate in the 1970's. When we pulled into any port, there were protesters. San Francisco was bad (violent protesters). Melbourne and Wellington were cool (the dock workers went on strike over our being there, and then the striking dock workers set up a dial-a-sailor phone bank to make it easy for the local population to invite us into their homes). Hong Kong was scary. An so on. Crossing those picket lines from the ship was not an experience that I ever want to have again. Physically on the wrong side of the picket lines (and had to cross them to get to the world).

As to contemporary hydrocarbons, they just "are". Nature will produce them at a profligate pace and there is simply nothing that we can do about them. With a number of assumptions, you can estimate the amount of methane produced by nature at somewhere between 1-5 TSCF/day (the world consumption of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons is less than 0.8 TSCF/day energy equivalent. If we burn them we get CO[sub]2[/sub] and water. If we don't burn them we get CH[sub]4[/sub] which the ACC advocates find to be far worse than CO[sub]2[/sub] for reasons that change from "study" to "study". Contemporary hydrocarbons are the single most "renewable" energy source on the planet, and we already have the infrastructure to use it. It will always be a part of the energy mix. If you are interested in my assumptions, I wrote a paper a couple of years ago called Does Petroleum Have to Come from Squashed Dinosaurs? that you may find interesting.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[rb1957]

I loved the "dial-a-sailor phone bank" ... it just sounds funny, for all the wrong reasons. Melbourne eh?, pity you didn't get to Sydney.

If by "contemporary hydrocarbons" you mean bio-fuels then I'd've thought we were ok with them; they represent C recently taken from the atmosphere being returned, as opposed to C taken from the atmosphere eons ago and over eons, and now being quickly dumped back into the atmosphere. I won't've counted these as FFs (as not being derived from fossils, or stuff deposited a long time ago). Though these'll always be fringe components of the energy stream.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[zdas04]

What is currently called biofuels is a truly insignificant portion of the hydrocarbons that nature produces every day. Basically everything that dies or is shed off a biological entity at sea is subjected to anaerobic decomposition. Same with swamps, lakes, and even sanitary landfills. Much of the biological waste in forests is trapped away from air by later waste accumulation and the lowest bio mass is at least partially anaerobic. We just have to get smarter about how we harvest this mass. And we will. Eventually fossil fuels will become too expensive and we will begin to do some really inventive engineering to replace them with forced anaerobic decomposition on a really grand scale (using bio mass that would have undergone aerobic decomposition in the natural course of things). I expect this contemporary hydrocarbon material will seamlessly replace fossil fuels when the time is right (I'm predicting the year 2700 or so).

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist