Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus

[Parihaka]

Two years ago the Bush administration got into trouble when reporters discovered that the Pentagon had been planting stories in Iraqi newspapers and even paying Iraqi reporters. More recently FEMA conducted a "news conference"in which the questioners were actually FEMA employees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/po...pagewanted=all

Steve McIntyre is reporting on Climate Audit that NASA has been using one of its employees in apparent violation of NASA regulations to operate an ostensibly private web site promoting NASA's claims about an alleged "global warming" threat.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2536

The employee, Gavin Schmidt, claims to be operating the web site RealClimate on his own, but NASA provides him the income that allows him to do so.

RealClimate » About

Schmidt is described as a climate modeler which is NASA's term for the glorified fortune tellers who claim they can predict what will happen in the distant future even if they cannot predict what will happen with hurricanes a few months in advance. One Florida business owner is attempting to sue those who falsely predicted an active hurricane season this past fall.



Schmidt's supervisor at NASA, James Hansen, is a known advocate of the Al Gore's global warming religion. The site allows Schmidt to criticize those who question IPCC and NASA claims about climate without it being apparent that the government is behind the site.

Democrats may have trouble taking advantage of the scandal because they support the claims of catastrophic climate change supported by Gore and Hanson.

For those who don't see anything wrong with NASA's incestuous relationship with the RealClimate site, what would you say if a high ranking military officer still on the Pentagon's payroll were operating an ostensibly nongovernment site supporting the Bush administration's handling of the conflict in Iraq?

Well well well. Schmidt's (and Hansen's) connections to realclimate.org are well known, I wasn't aware of NASA's code of conduct criteria though; I guess that explains the lawsuits CATO funded on his (Hansens) behalf.
Interesting where it lead me though, I've always wondered who actually funded realclimate.org and had assumed it was NASA as so much of their own AGW promotion links to it.
Turns out not though: in fact the site is owned by Environmental Media Services, formerly owned in turn by Arlie Schardt, former communications director for Al Gore

Edit: inserted 'formerly', see below.

[dalem]

I'm still kinda confused by this whole mechanism deal. The mechanism is there. We know how it works. The questions are first, how big is the effect, and second, do other mechanisms counter or increase the effect. What are the negative feedbacks? What are the positive feedbacks? And so on.

You are one step ahead of yourself. :) Greenhouse is a general mechanism. There is no mechanism known that accounts for CO2 coming out of a smokestack in Gary, Indiana to temps increasing in Bayeux, France.

-dale

[Parihaka]

Turns out EMS is now controlled by Fenton Communications.

So David Fenton, a communications specialist in environmental scare tactics who operates closely with the Tides Foundation, an organisation set up to act as a proxy for left wing organisations to get tax-exempt status (if paid by them for 'services' you need not declare it to the taxman) funds realclimate.org. The thot plickens.

[gunnut]

I'm still kinda confused by this whole mechanism deal. The mechanism is there. We know how it works. The questions are first, how big is the effect, and second, do other mechanisms counter or increase the effect. What are the negative feedbacks? What are the positive feedbacks? And so on.

It's more like we know how part of the mechanism works. We have no idea how everything together on a planetary scale works. Throw in the fluctuating output of the sun, our position in the galaxy, and everything else that might have some effect to this whole thing, we really don't know jack.

[JAD_333]

Turns out EMS is now controlled by Fenton Communications.

So David Fenton, a communications specialist in environmental scare tactics who operates closely with the Tides Foundation, an organisation set up to act as a proxy for left wing organisations to get tax-exempt status (if paid by them for 'services' you need not declare it to the taxman) funds realclimate.org. The thot plickens.

I am on the edge of my seat following all this great detective work.

[CyberPredator]

That said, I'm still curious how my statement quoted in your previous post is in error. Especially since it was largely speculation on past climate, so there weren't many facts to be wrong on.

I took another look at the underlined sentence, and now it makes sense to me. Sorry for saying it was in error.

ArmChair, do you think that the economic effects of CO2 reduction will be light on the first world countries but will be very onerous on those 3rd world countries which are still industrialising? Could this place undue pressure on such countries which will increase the likelihood of future conflicts, particularly if the temperature continues to go up anyway?

My prediction would be that the single biggest issue of the 21st century will not be global warming but the energy crisis.

Have I got this predicition right ArmchairGeneral? I like your scientific take on these things as you seem to have a good scientific background.

[Parihaka]

I am on the edge of my seat following all this great detective work.

It is getting interesting. Thus far I've read unsubstantiated reports that George Soros has spent $20m in 2005 via OSI and Heinz-Kerry $4m - $6m. both through the Tides Foundation.

[tankie]

Turns out EMS is now controlled by Fenton Communications.

So David Fenton, a communications specialist in environmental scare tactics who operates closely with the Tides Foundation, an organisation set up to act as a proxy for left wing organisations to get tax-exempt status (if paid by them for 'services' you need not declare it to the taxman) funds realclimate.org. The thot plickens.

You really are a bulldog huh ? :)

[ArmchairGeneral]

You are one step ahead of yourself. :) Greenhouse is a general mechanism. There is no mechanism known that accounts for CO2 coming out of a smokestack in Gary, Indiana to temps increasing in Bayeux, France.

-dale

Aha. You're looking for a realistic model. Basically you're talking the about the need for accurate computer modeling. I see. I was kinda separating the two in my mind, sort of like the difference between natural selection and evolution. But I get it now. I think.

[ArmchairGeneral]

I took another look at the underlined sentence, and now it makes sense to me. Sorry for saying it was in error.

ArmChair, do you think that the economic effects of CO2 reduction will be light on the first world countries but will be very onerous on those 3rd world countries which are still industrialising? Could this place undue pressure on such countries which will increase the likelihood of future conflicts, particularly if the temperature continues to go up anyway?

My prediction would be that the single biggest issue of the 21st century will not be global warming but the energy crisis.

Have I got this predicition right ArmchairGeneral? I like your scientific take on these things as you seem to have a good scientific background.

Um. Well, can't say that I'm any sort of an expert, especially on climatology. My main area of study is biology. But general science and economics are certainly among my interests, so let's see.

First part, seems reasonable- rich people generally get through hard times easier than poor people, so yeah, as far as I can see.

As for the energy crisis, that's one of my pet peeves. IMHO, there will be no energy crisis, unless something totally unforeseen occurs. There may be short energy scares, as in '73 and '79, but without catastrophic governmental interference they should go away quickly. The very existence of the peak oil hysteria guarantees that the predictions will fail. Oil traders are not stupid enough to ignore the possibility of oil shortages. So oil prices go up, before oil gets too scarce, and people switch to other energy sources, such as coal, nuclear, solar, etc. That's the way I see it, anyway.

[reasonmclucus]

Well well well. Schmidt's (and Hansen's) connections to realclimate.org are well known, I wasn't aware of NASA's code of conduct criteria though; I guess that explains the lawsuits CATO funded on his (Hansens) behalf.
Interesting where it lead me though, I've always wondered who actually funded realclimate.org and had assumed it was NASA as so much of their own AGW promotion links to it.
Turns out not though: in fact the site is owned by Environmental Media Services, formerly owned in turn by Arlie Schardt, former communications director for Al Gore

Edit: inserted 'formerly', see below.

If Schmidt is using information he obtained while working for NASA than NASA is providing part of the funding for the information on the site. If DOD did that the media would be screaming scandal.

[dalem]

Aha. You're looking for a realistic model. Basically you're talking the about the need for accurate computer modeling. I see. I was kinda separating the two in my mind, sort of like the difference between natural selection and evolution. But I get it now. I think.

That's a small part of it. I'm probably not being clear because I just assume everyone reading this topic on this forum has read my babbling drivel for the past 3 years. :)

To bottom line it, there is simply no known connection between industrial pollution and climate. There is a theory that the "greenhouse gases" we produce somehow add enough to the heat trap of the planet that "too much" heat is being trapped. This is the ragged tripe religion that I piss on from a great height and that others label "global warming".

Now, ignoring the gibbering idiots who try to connect everything to this religion, from hurricanes to amphibian die-offs to children's asthma, there are some core problems with the theory:

1) It's a shitty theory. It skates right on by known factors such as orbital mechanics, geologic events, and solar output to shove a stethoscope into smokestacks and tailpipes. Eliminating or reducing pollution of all kinds is a worthwhile enough goal in and of itself without inventing ghosts and goblins to scare the masses into stampeding.

2) Temperature curves aren't really that alarming. Hotter, colder, dryer, wetter - who cares? Who knows? The planet's been cooler and hotter than today over the last few thousand years, and no one can even say what the temperature is suposed to be, so "too hot" or "too cold" are stupid concepts to panic over.

3) Computer modeling. O by the great gods of Barsoom am I sick of hearing about computer modeling. This isn't a wing or a drill bit or Lindsay Lohan's sobriety curve - it's a giant system of interactive fluid envelopes, electromagnetic fields, currents, energy input, and boundary layers. So all the computer models you could stack in Britney's garage-sized nether region aren't going to help you figure it out yet.

The surge of interest in climatology will be much better utilized by honing our understanding of the individual pieces of the climate process, and maybe after we understand those pieces better, and how they interact, we'll understand the planet's climate enough to ask whether it's gone a bit wonky or not.

How's that?

:)

-dale

[reasonmclucus]

You are one step ahead of yourself. :) Greenhouse is a general mechanism. There is no mechanism known that accounts for CO2 coming out of a smokestack in Gary, Indiana to temps increasing in Bayeux, France.

-dale

R.W. Wood established that greenhouses work by confining heated air rather than by trapping radiation in 1909. There is no physical process that would allow the atmosphere to raise atmospheric temperatures by absorbing and reemitting infrared radiation.

here appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the Sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap.

I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its efficacy. As a matter of fact I am of the opinon that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite, as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only the limited amount within the enclosure. In the "open", the ground is continually brought into contact with cold air by convection currents.

To test the matter I constructed two enclosures of dead black cardboard, one covered with a glass plate, the other with a plate of rock-salt of equal thickness. The bulb of a thermometer was inserted in each enclosure and the whole packed in cotton, with the exception of the transparent plates which were exposed. When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 C, the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that transmitted the longer waves from the Sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate.

There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures. The maximum temperature reached was about 55 C. From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 C, it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it,while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection. in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped.

Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere. warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground even under the most favorable conditions.

R. W. Wood: Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse

[ArmchairGeneral]

That's a small part of it. I'm probably not being clear because I just assume everyone reading this topic on this forum has read my babbling drivel for the past 3 years. :)

I have, at least a whole lot of it. ;)

To bottom line it, there is simply no known connection between industrial pollution and climate. There is a theory that the "greenhouse gases" we produce somehow add enough to the heat trap of the planet that "too much" heat is being trapped. This is the ragged tripe religion that I piss on from a great height and that others label "global warming".

As far as I'm aware, the idea that CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" significantly increase the temperature of the atmosphere from what it would otherwise be is pretty much universally accepted among climatologists. It seems to me that the idea that increasing the concentration of those gases in the atmosphere could also increase this "greenhouse effect" is at least plausible.

Now, ignoring the gibbering idiots who try to connect everything to this religion, from hurricanes to amphibian die-offs to children's asthma, there are some core problems with the theory:

1) It's a shitty theory. It skates right on by known factors such as orbital mechanics, geologic events, and solar output to shove a stethoscope into smokestacks and tailpipes. Eliminating or reducing pollution of all kinds is a worthwhile enough goal in and of itself without inventing ghosts and goblins to scare the masses into stampeding.

If I understand correctly, Milankovich cycles are a little too slow to really come into the picture. Geologic events? I know nothing. Solar output? As far as I can tell, the proponents say it hasn't increased, at least much, while the skeptics say it has.

2) Temperature curves aren't really that alarming. Hotter, colder, dryer, wetter - who cares? Who knows? The planet's been cooler and hotter than today over the last few thousand years, and no one can even say what the temperature is suposed to be, so "too hot" or "too cold" are stupid concepts to panic over.

We're fine -right now. Supposedly some other species aren't doing so hot, so to speak. The ooh-scary runaway global warming scenarios seem a little far fetched, but then I'm no climatologist. But I would definitely say that this is the weakest part of the whole shebang in my view.

3) Computer modeling. O by the great gods of Barsoom am I sick of hearing about computer modeling. This isn't a wing or a drill bit or Lindsay Lohan's sobriety curve - it's a giant system of interactive fluid envelopes, electromagnetic fields, currents, energy input, and boundary layers. So all the computer models you could stack in Britney's garage-sized nether region aren't going to help you figure it out yet.

The surge of interest in climatology will be much better utilized by honing our understanding of the individual pieces of the climate process, and maybe after we understand those pieces better, and how they interact, we'll understand the planet's climate enough to ask whether it's gone a bit wonky or not.

How's that?

:)

-dale

It seems like computer models would really be the only way to do what you're talking about. Limited models, of course. But with a non-linear system like climate, it's hard to get away from computers. But anyway, yeah, that makes sense. Basically that's what I figured you meant. We need a realistic model (in the sense of "theoretical model of how it all works together) that connects the dots between the various factors before we can really say anything definite. 'Course, it would seem that some think we've already got it. I doubt it.

Anyhoo, I will continue my efforts to outskeptic the skeptics, and remain, as always, a fencesitter. :)

[dalem]

As far as I'm aware, the idea that CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" significantly increase the temperature of the atmosphere from what it would otherwise be is pretty much universally accepted among climatologists. It seems to me that the idea that increasing the concentration of those gases in the atmosphere could also increase this "greenhouse effect" is at least plausible.

Sure, it's plausible, but not remotely proven in any way.

If I understand correctly, Milankovich cycles are a little too slow to really come into the picture. Geologic events? I know nothing. Solar output? As far as I can tell, the proponents say it hasn't increased, at least much, while the skeptics say it has.

Milankovich Cycles are not believed to affect weather of course, but climate, certainly yes. Their variations match up fairly well with long term climate shifts, at least the ones we think we can see in the geologic record.

Plate tectonics has a great deal to do with it as well, i.e. the positions of the continents and their affect on ocean and wind currents. That's obviously very long term of course. Someone already mentions vulcanism - a volcano blowing up has been shown to have very strong short term affect on global temperatures. Climate? Dunno.

Solar output is definitely known to vary, and in fact was at a recorded high all through the nineties. Assuming sunspots are a decent indicator, there is correlation all the way back to the "little ice age" with low solar output and global climate.

We're fine -right now. Supposedly some other species aren't doing so hot, so to speak. The ooh-scary runaway global warming scenarios seem a little far fetched, but then I'm no climatologist. But I would definitely say that this is the weakest part of the whole shebang in my view.

It seems like computer models would really be the only way to do what you're talking about. Limited models, of course. But with a non-linear system like climate, it's hard to get away from computers. But anyway, yeah, that makes sense. Basically that's what I figured you meant. We need a realistic model (in the sense of "theoretical model of how it all works together) that connects the dots between the various factors before we can really say anything definite. 'Course, it would seem that some think we've already got it. I doubt it.

Anyhoo, I will continue my efforts to outskeptic the skeptics, and remain, as always, a fencesitter. :)

:)

-dale