forgottenliberty.com

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Forgotten Liberty. Forgotten Liberty said: Is global warming a hoax? http://bit.ly/2YxCj [...]

I would like to make a suggestion here. My professional area is environmental protection (i.e., one of at least three things I do to make a living). I will be the first to tell you that I know very little about the scientific details of global warming because air is not my bag. I am more of a clean water, contaminated soil, and hazardous waste guy.

In my early college days, I got most of an undergraduate degree in geology, and that includes studying ancient climates. Liberty is quite right when he says that climatic warming and cooling have shifted around quite a lot in the past, and most of that shifting appears to have been natural when you look at geological time. Moreover, he did pose the question correctly. We know that the Earth is warming. The question before us is whether that warming is natural (as in years past) or whether human activities are causing it now.

In looking for an answer, I don’t think it is right to go to a hyperpolitical website for information and data on global warming. No Republican websites. No Democratic websites. No conservative websites. No liberal websites. The reason I say that is because each side takes a political position first and has the ability to bend or spin the truth to whatever its predetermined position might be. For example, conservatives are scared to death of a massive rush to fix a global warming problem that really does not exist and fear that this rush will end up destroying the economy of the Earth and ushering in Al Gore as the Anti-Christ. Alternatively, the liberal position is that conservative industrial interests would allow the whole Earth to be destroyed just to make an extra dollar, that the sky really is falling, and that we had better do something fast or we are all doomed. Both sides are exceedingly emotional about this and have tremendous self interests in bending the argument their way.

I think the best thing to do would be to forget about all of them and go delve objectively into the real science and see what it is telling us about global warming. I work in a town where science is big business. I am a scientist, and a lot of my friends are too. Most of the scientists I know do not go to their laboratories with political agendas—not in my experience. They go there to search for truth in an objective way, which is what they should be doing—be it good news or bad news. I think the things that they are discovering, one way or another, probably provide the most objective and truthful information about global warming, whatever that might be. A good place to begin looking would be in peer-reviewed science periodicals such as “Science,” which are normally on the shelves in science libraries at major universities.

In principal, I agree with Charles on this one. The truth will set you free, so to speak. The only caveat that I would add is that there is millions in funding for global warming. It is possible for formerly scientific organizations to be biased at this point. Contrary to what the media might say, the scientific community is still divided on this issue. Look at all available sources, and make the best judgment you can.

Thanks for the link sir, and keep on digging. Climate was changing before we were on Earth, it will continue to change after we are gone. I sometimes think that it is human arrogance that allows us to think that out tiny fraction of CO2 can radically change the Earth.

One of the lead GW guys said as much:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506832

This lie being sold to us about GW is a joke.

I believe that if we staple Al Gore’s mouth shut we could cut emissions in half.

Don’t forget Prince Charles, too!

So, Liberty, you’re able to determine a scientific event better than actual scientists. Wow. Are you a genius?

Janet, Why the hostility? If you want to listen to a real scientist just watch the video at the end of this post. I’m not a scientist. If I gave the impression that I was conducting my own uneducated, global warming experiments then I apologize. I am just repeating information that I have collaborated from other scientific sources. The information is out there for anyone to find.

But you have only chosen to include information that validates your opinion. You have justified your position on issues by only providing people with access to things that make you look like you know what you’re talking about, when you’re not an expert. Actual experts who spend their days studying this are quite clear that climate change is happening.

Once again, I am sharing the opinion I have formed after looking at the evidence and I have shared a portion of the evidence that causes me to have the opinion that I do. Do you think all climatologists and meteorologist believe global warming is real? What about Mr. Bastardi in the above video? Do you not consider him an expert because he has a differing view from you?

I could give you a VERY LONG list of scientist who disagree on the greenhouse gas global warming theory. The same scientist who now say we are heading towards a global warming catastrophe are the same ones who said we were headed towards a new ice age in the early 70′s.

Okay, give me the long list. If you have this long list, give it to me.

I don’t trust anything coming from Fox News.

The clip was of Joe Bastardi from accuweather.com Yes he was being interviewed on Fox, but he is not a Fox employee. Why do you brush him off? Are you that close minded?
Since you invalidate Mr. Bastardi for some reason here are some other meteorologists. After you read what they have to say and still want more proof that global warming isn’t a proven fact, I may get some more names for you if I’m not to busy. But I have the feeling that no matter how much I show you it won’t even come close to changing your mind.

Click on their names for more info

Matt Rogers

Dr. William Gray

John Coleman founder of the Weather Channel

All you have to do is look at the evidence, or lack thereof, with an open mind. Don’t believe everything you hear on TV or were taught in school.

And have you looked into those supporting it? I have looked at the evidence of climate change, and I believe it does exist.

I’m not being closed minded. I am actually paying attention to science. Did it ever occur to you that Fox wasn’t going to put someone on their network that said something that promoted a liberal theory such as climate change.

How can you look at the Arctic and say that the ice caps melting just is a hoax? How can you believe that animals losing their habitats is some thing that isn’t happening? Look around you. Find people who disagree with you and look into what THEY say, instead of trying to convince people that the minority of people who support your theory are in the right.

To me, your beliefs appear to be based in finding someone who stated something you felt comfortable with and you just walked away without looking for other information. Why try to change my mind? Why not try to change yours? Are YOU that closed minded?

John Coleman – is a weatherman, not a meterologist; I can’t find creditials on Matt Rogers; Gray makes personal attacks on others with his claims, yet refuses to have his facts checked

Janet,
In the clip from Fox news, Orielly mentions that he had invited Green Peace to come on the program. They accepted but then backed out at the last minute, so there goes your theory about Fox trying to make it one sided. Why is global warming a conservative liberal thing anyway? Shouldn’t it be about the evidence?

Your statement about the Arctic ice cap is wrong. It grows some years and shrink others yet you only hear on the news about the years when it shrinks. The Antarctic ice cap, however, has been consistently growing. This is common knowledge… unless you are a follower of Al Gore. Ice caps may melt in one section and grow in another. Yet, people like Al Gore will only show you the area that is melting. Recently in the Antarctic, the areas that are growing have outpaced the areas that are shrinking.
non Fox news source– http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-601,00.html

You say that Dr Gray refuses to have his facts checked? How can he do that? Feel free to check them out and find out if they are faulty. No one is stopping you.
You need to stop attacking the source of an argument and actually start debating the issue. Logic and debate 101. Instead of attacking the experts I have put forward, why don’t you actually try to make a counter argument. Then after you make a counter argument, you can lay out the evidence that leads you to believe that global warming is true. Then, in turn, I can try to counter that. Since you have put forth a no Fox news clause, I will put forth a no government run or funded agency clause. I would love to have a debate, but so far everything I have put forward has been met with a “nuh uh” and “I don’t like that guy so I’m not going to listen”. So, do you want to have an honest debate? If not I can’t continue because this is taking to much of my time.

Hello,

Much general confusion as to the issue of global warming appears to arise from input of persons that seem to be experts, but are really not experts – from both sides of the isle. Certain laypersons seem to follow these pseudo experts, being jerked from one perspective to the other – ending up with the perspective that best coincides with their political perspective.

The gentleman’s comments in the above video are quite entertaining, and it certainly appears that he is no expert. A key marker of an expert in disguise is one that employs an extremely small slice of data to make broad sweeping conclusions pertaining to causation or lack thereof—-and carrying these assumptions to all relevant data, ignoring the substantial body of relevant data. Another key marker of an expert in disguise is one that merely observes a correlation or lack thereof to make assumptions as to causality of lack thereof. You will find that “real” experts are often well aware that correlation does not necessitate causation or lack thereof, especially in multivariable systems. The forecasting of environmental temperatures and the determination of underlying causal factors influencing temperature variations represent extreme multivariable problems, since atmospheric temperatures can be influenced by thousands of factors, ranging from solar radiation cycling to volcano ash output to Mongolian dust storm production to black-top road coverage to atmospheric condensation nuclei color and concentration to variations in the earth’s orbital eccentricity, to deep-water ocean circulation changes, and so on. Greenhouse gas production appears to represent merely one of many thousands of relevant variables.

Keep in mind that our atmosphere may exhibit certain temperature-correcting capabilities, such that when the atmosphere gets extremely hot, the atmosphere attempts to correct itself. For example, hotter surface temperatures alone may increase evaporation from the oceans. Furthermore, certain wide expanses of desert may produce more dust; uneven heating leads to more wind; more dust gets kicked up into the atmosphere. Note that dust storms over Mongolia have been tracked circumnavigating the globe. Increased atmospheric moisture in combination with increased condensation nuclei from the dust (some light colored dust of which can reflect solar radiation back into space) in combination with increased moisture may lead to increased global cloud coverage, more sunlight reflected back into space; more surface shading; more cooling. It appears as no accident that the atmosphere often oscillates between heating and cooling, as this is consistent with the atmosphere adjusting itself for both hot and cold conditions.

The question before us is more fundamental than whether the earth is actually cooling or warming, as this depends on what interval of time we observe. Instead, the question is whether our production of greenhouse gases is affecting global temperatures, perhaps undesirably multiplying temperature extremes. By creating conditions for extreme heat, we might actually be setting up the next ice age as the atmosphere may over correct for the heating.

To begin to isolate on the effects of greenhouse gases alone, we begin by constructing artificial atmospheres in the lab, where the atmospheres exhibit gas partial pressures for various atmospheric gases in similar proportion as worldwide atmospheric averages. We then input solar radiation into the artificial atmosphere and measure the atmosphere’s heat-trapping ability while factoring out, i.e., compensating lab-induced effects. We then adjust the ratio of gases to model the addition of CO2 and observe the change in heat-absorbing capacity of the artificial atmosphere. Similar experiments can be done via computer simulation with molecular data input. Generally, we observe that an increase in CO2 proportion correlates with an increase in heat-trapping tendency of the simulated atmosphere.

Rather than looking at small slices of naked data, like the gentlemen in the video, more informative observations could be drawn, for example, by plotting the temperature data along side global greenhouse gas output and running a correlation algorithm between the different data sequences. Note that greenhouse gas output has not been constant either. In such correlation calculations, we can also account known exogenous effects, such as annual volcano ash output, wildfire ash output, desert atmospheric dust input, and so on. As these exogenous variables are accounted for in the calculations, you’ll see an increase in the correlation between the temperatures and the greenhouse gas production, consistent with laboratory models. The gentleman in the video appears to assume that greenhouse gas production has been linearly increasing and that it would be reasonable to conclude that our activities have no effect on global temperatures. He appears to be making assumptions as to lack of causality based on a selective slice of data in which he fails to observe a substantial increase in temperatures, i.e., he is stabbing in the dark.

The bottom line: informed commentary regarding multivariable dynamic systems and problems before us
requires detailed study of potentially thousands of variables, some of which may dynamically interact in ways that we still do not fully understand. Our supercomputers and accompanying AI algorithms are only beginning to model these variables. Nobody can solve this equation now – we only have approximations. We cannot predict the distant future with anywhere near 100% accuracy, but we can provide projections characterized by estimated frequency probabilities based on trends and cycles of different variables in combination.

However, we can say with virtual certainty that the ratios of atmospheric constituents, e.g., greenhouse gas percentages, represent variables in the global temperature equation. We humans can gamble on increasing the greenhouse gas variable/parameter, and see what happens – but why play roulette with Earth? Let’s not tinker with increasing this greenhouse gas variable folks.

Francis,
If you look at CO2 concentrations in the past, it appears to have no correlation on temperature. There have been periods in the Earth’s history well before the industrial revolution where CO2 levels were much higher than they are now and the Earth thrived. I talked about this in another global warming post —> http://forgottenliberty.com/2009/09/is-global-warming-caused-by-humans/

There is still no hard evidence that the extremely small amount (when compared to the entire atmosphere) of CO2 produced by human activity is having any negative impact on the climate.

Liberty,
A strong correlation exists. You may not see it, because it requires correcting for many other factors. For example, when CO2 levels where much higher, perhaps there were much higher reflective particulate concentrations in the atmosphere, such as due to volcanic activity, etc., — or perhaps this coincided with an ebb in the solar output cycle — or a period of altered orbital eccentricity– all factors which could disguise the contribution of the increased CO2. This is partly why we study the atmospheric effects of CO2 in isolation in the laboratory, as it is often difficult to accurately correct for the confluence of all other factors when observing atmospheric CO2/temperature data.

Liberty,

Also keep in mind that it’s important whenever looking at data to understand how the data was obtained. For example, it’s known that certain areas of the earth may exhibit cooling while other areas exhibit warming. If we take CO2 measurements from one area and take temperature measurements from another area, this can be problematic. Furthermore, note that extrapolation of ancient data, e.g., via tree ring and soil sampling methods, is notoriously inaccurate. One can take measurements in one area, and drive five miles away and get different numbers. Furthermore, such ancient data often suffers from so-called sampling problems. Really, we want many evenly distributed measurements from around the globe (including offshore sites), where temperature, CO2, and other relevant data are simultaneously sampled at predetermined frequencies. Then we can begin to construct a more accurate picture from which we can make meaningful observations and run better simulations.

Furthermore, note that a reason we run correlation algorithms, is that it’s often difficult to measure correlations with the naked eye. For example, even the data in the link that you provided will show strong correlation values (substantially greater than zero)for certain sections of the data, e.g., 400-300 and 100-0. Note the simultaneous bumps at 250 and 50.

Francis,
Do you have any hard evidence that the extremely small amount of CO2 emitted by humans is having any negative effects on the climate? Is there any evidence that warrants remaking our entire economy? If the industrialized world begins to “de-industrialize” as a result of climate hysteria, it will have a significant impact on a countless number of people in the third world who rely on the industrialized world for food, clothing, and fuel.

Before we radically alter our economy and way of life, I think we should have some real world proof that the slight increase in global temperature that we have seen in the last 30 years is in fact caused by humans, is not cyclical (caused by solar activity for example), and will continue unless we do something.

We have been told for years that there was a consensus among scientists that global warming was real and was caused by humans. Of course, the events of the last several months have shown there is no consensus. Many scientists disagreed with the man caused global warming theory, but were essentially black listed and kept from having their work published in peer reviewed literature by those who have a vested interest in pushing the man caused global warming theory. Many of the top global warming scientist have lost all credibility because they altered, hid, twisted, destroyed and made up data. We constantly receive contradictory reports such as “2009 being the warmest year on record” but then we also find out from top scientists that there has been no warming since the late 1990′s. Then we are also told that industrial activity in the last 100 years is causing the earth to warm, but we also know that the Earth was warmer during the medieval warming period 1000 years before the industrial revolution. We also know that volcanic activity puts so much CO2 into the atmosphere that the tiny amount released by humans is statistically insignificant. We are also told by warmists that polar bears are dying off because their habitat is being destroyed, but when actual wildlife biologists are consulted, they tell us that the polar bear population is growing at a fast rate. Al Gore tells us that Antarctic ice is receding, but the amount of ice in Antarctica has actually grown in the last several years. It’s hard to know who is telling the truth, especially when there is billions of dollars in government grant money involved.

Liberty,

I have been anticipitating we may experience significant global cooling the next few years, including this year. I also anticipate that people (including some “scientists”) that generally have no understanding of the variables affecting the environment will promplty conclude that our CO2 output has no effect on environmental temperatures and that climate change is a hoax. The latter anticipation comes from knowing the tendency of laypersons to make the leap of assumption from lack of a simple visible correlation to lack of causation – a leap of assumption that should not be made without accounting for changes in all of the relevant variables – and a leap that should not be made without running appropriate correlation computations and environmental simultaitons.

Shifting to a discussion of economics, keep in mind that innovative change, especially in terms of development of new more efficient mechanisms for energy production can theoretically greatly benefit the economy. There is no growth without change. Currently, there is a tremendous push toward innovation in energy production and related mechanisms, ranging from sonoluminescense-based nuclear fusion to systems and methods for neutralizing and/or reusing nuclear waste to geothermal power to hydrogen production via coal gassification to ocean wave electrical enerators to new types of solar cells to hybrid vehicles to new types of wind turbines to revolutionary batteries…and so on. Much of this push would not be occurring if we were complacent with existing energy production methods. We need to think in terms of taking advantage of the impending change rather than clutching to the past, and only then will we not be left behind in terms of technological development. Note that the automakers in Detroit have suffered, apparently simultaneously clinging to the past and being too slow to push new technologies – only to watch Toyota zoom past, with production of the Prius, etc. Hopefully they can “rechrage” themselves with the Volt, etc.

Regarding judgements as to whether our effect on the environment has been good or bad thus far – these judgements cannot be made with certainty one way or the other, as this depends upon perspective. From the perspective of the polar bear and their promoters, existing changes in the climate have been problematic. To the microbes that like the conditions of melted polar caps, the environmental change has been fantastic. Note that some in the scientific community believe that we have inadvertently averted a tremendous problematic cooling of the earth that would have otherwise occurred. To these scientists, our impact thus far, in terms of contributing to the heating of the environment, has been beneficial.

As our awareness of the environment increases, we begin to take on responsibilities that have heretofore been that of nature, e.g., maintaining global temperatures within a certain range; balancing ecosystems; preventing the extinction of certain species, and so on. We now have a responsibility to pay attention to the atmosphere, as changes in the atmosphere can greatly affect us – independent of whether the brunt of these changes are caused by natural phenomena or otherwise.

The notion that because the amount of CO2 input into the environment is “tiny” our contribution to the global temperature equation is “tiny” simply does not fly. Note that “tiny” changes in average temperatures over time can create huge effects. Furthermore, sometimes that with the largest effect comes from the tiniest of things, e.g., a tiny input to a given system can yield a huge output effect– where this effect is substantially dependent upon the phenomena governing the system to which the input is provided. For example, a tiny dose of 1/10,000 of a gram of a particular botulinum toxin can purportedly kill a human – the effect of the tiny amount of toxin is dependent upon its interaction with the body’s systems. A tiny neutron splitting a tiny nucleus can trigger an atom bomb explosion. Similarly, we cannot judge the effects of a “tiny” amount of CO2 as being “tiny” without taking into account how the CO2 interacts with the atmospheric system – and without keeping in mind that even if the input is tiny and the output is also tiny — sometimes a small output can have a huge impact on another system – e.g., a small “output” temperature fluctuation could have a huge impact on certain affected systems.

Furthermore, I would venture to say that our pollutant input to the environment is anything but tiny – just look at some of the satellite photos over India illustrating large swaths of smog – anytime you see this much smog, you know that a large portion of that is CO2 – CO2 production it is unquestionably a major constituent of fossil-fuel combustion processes. When you fill up your car, where do you think that gasoline has gone when your tank is empty? It has gone right into the atmosphere, but in a different form of course – substantially CO2 and perhaps nitrogen, with a lesser amount of nitric oxide, carbon monoxide, aldehydes, other volatile organic compounds, and so on (–for example, the combustion of methane:
CH4 + 2O2 ? CO2 + 2H2O + energy). The amount of this matter that is actually converted into energy via E=mc2 is so small that it is substantially zero — the energy is from the release of chemical energy inherent in the chemical bonds. In other words, if you measured the weight of your fuel and then measured the weight of the gaseous byproducts, the weight would be substantially the same. Now multiply that among all of the cars, power plants, and so on, around the world and you’ll get a feel for how “tiny” this is – keeping in mind that a “tiny” dust cloud in Mongolia can circumnavigate the globe and change the color of sunsets world wide.

Francis

…to visualize it another way, imagine if all of the exhaust output from our vehicles and power plants was black or opaque … rather than the majority of it being transparent CO2 and N2. Frankly, we would be living in the dark — and it would be getting darker everyday.

Francis

Francis,
Do you have any proof that CO2 produced from humans is having any real world impact on climate? Do you have any numbers as to how much CO2 in the atmosphere is actually attributable to humans? Are there other factors that are more likely to have a greater influence on world temperatures than CO2 like water vapor or sun spot activity? According to geocraft.com, the amount of the greenhouse effect that can be attributable to humans is about .28% of the total effect. source- http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Is this .28% of the total greenhouse effect more influential than sun spots on climate?

You are also mistaken on your point about Detroit and Toyota “zooming” past them with the Prius. Toyota is not making any real money on the Prius. The amount of profit made from one Prius is only about 7% to 12% of what Toyota makes on the sale of one Tundra pickup truck. Toyota has to sell about 10 Prius to make the same amount of profit as selling one Tundra. The real reason for Detroit’s woes is that the average union employee at a Detroit factory is paid about $70 dollars an hour when you take into account hourly wage, health benefits, retirement plan, etc. Toyota factories here in the states pay their employees about $40 an hour when all benefits are taken into consideration. This means that our domestic car companies have almost double the labor costs of the Japanese companies. The main reason for this is the constant demands of the unions. How can you compete when your labor costs are nearly double that of your competitor? It has nothing to do with the Prius or Chevy’s new Volt. The Volt will be too expensive for most Americans for years to come and will have no impact on the profitability of GM until it can be made cheaper.