The Great Global Warming Scam

[skbuncks]

1. No average temperature of any part of the earth's surface, over any period, has ever been made.

 

How can you derive a "global average" when you do not even have a single "local" average?

 

What they actually use is the procedure used from 1850, which is to make one measurement a day at the weather station from a maximum/minimum thermometer. The mean of these two is taken to be the average. No statistician could agree that a plausible average can be obtained this way. The potential bias is more than the claimed "global warming.

 

Chris Essex, Ross McKitrick, and Bjarne Andresen recently published a paper in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, Vol 32, 1 - 27, 2007] in which they demonstrate that using different metrics leads to different conclusions about whether the earth is really warming.

 

Here is the abstract:

Physical, mathematical, and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both ‘‘warming’’ and ‘‘cooling’’ simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed.

 

Their conclusion is strong [emphasis added]:

 

There is no global temperature. The reasons lie in the properties of the equation of state governing local thermodynamic equilibrium, and the implications cannot be avoided by substituting statistics for physics.

 

... Since temperature is an intensive variable, the total temperature is meaningless in terms of the system being measured, and hence any one simple average has no necessary meaning. Neither does temperature have a constant proportional relationship with energy or other extensive thermodynamic properties.

 

Averages of the Earth’s temperature field are thus devoid of a physical context that would indicate how they are to be interpreted, or what meaning can be attached to changes in their levels, up or down. Statistics cannot stand in as a replacement for the missing physics because data alone are context-free.

 

Assuming a context only leads to paradoxes such as simultaneous warming and cooling in the same system based on arbitrary choice in some free parameter. Considering even a restrictive class of admissible coordinate transformations yields families of averaging rules that likewise generate opposite trends in the same data, and by implication indicating contradictory rankings of years in terms of warmth.

 

The physics provides no guidance as to which interpretation of the data is warranted. Since arbitrary indexes are being used to measure a physically non-existent quantity, it is not surprising that different formulae yield different results with no apparent way to select among them. The purpose of this paper was to explain the fundamental meaninglessness of so-called global temperature data. The problem can be (and has been) happily ignored in the name of the empirical study of climate. But nature is not obliged to respect our statistical conventions and conceptual shortcuts. Debates over the levels and trends in so-called global temperatures will continue interminably, as will disputes over the significance of these things for the human experience of climate, until some physical basis is established for the meaningful measurement of climate variables, if indeed that is even possible.

 

It may happen that one particular average will one day prove to stand out with some special physical significance. However, that is not so today. The burden rests with those who calculate these statistics to prove their logic and value in terms of the governing dynamical equations, let alone the wider, less technical, contexts in which they are commonly encountered.

 

full paper here http://www.climatepolice.com/GlobalTemp.pdf

 

skb

[StormWarrior]

The main problem is the age old fact that Science is not allowed to get in the way of Political Policy.

 

Personally, I do not believe in 'Man Made Climate Change'!

However, I do believe that everyone should be 'encouraged' to reduce waste, pollution, etc. simply because its a good idea, it saves money and protects the 'local' environment.

 

Using 'good ideas' to introduce taxes is the wrong reason.

[magix]

However, I do believe that everyone should be 'encouraged' to reduce waste, pollution, etc. simply because its a good idea, it saves money and protects the 'local' environment.

 

Using 'good ideas' to introduce taxes is the wrong reason.

 

 

Couldn't agree more

[huggles]

full paper here http://www.climatepolice.com/GlobalTemp.pdf

 

skb

 

Having skimmed it they seem to be arguing against the use of the mean (Arithmetic mean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) on the basis that temparature at various points on the globe vary. Well duh. I don't know how much you know about the mean but that is rather the point of it. In statistical analysis it is a very commonly used way of measuring the central tendency of a bunch of data and evening out all the freaky effects that might happen to individual data points and cause you to falsely write off an effect or conclude that one exists when it doesn't. I suppose it's true to say it is not in itself a real temparature but it is still meaningful - probably more meaningful that one individual data point or source. Now, if they want to attack the use of measures of central tendency to look at data, why are they doing it in this guise? That paper is meaningless, statistical posturing dressed up as some sort of evidence against climate change. It smacks of desperation to me. Don't know whether that's desperation to get noticed in the crowd and make a name for themselves or desperation to please a paymaster.

(As an aside, I thought I would also mention that all three researchers are associated with the Fraser Institute, an right-wing organisation who have happily recieved funding from exxonmobil to carry out their independent analysis).

 

See also here : Deltoid » Global Warming Sceptic Bingo

We are ticking the "Climate modeling isn’t scientific" box. If you follow the link associated you will find an explanation of statistical modelling and how it can be used and refined to try to make predictions and check those we have made, then you might understand the implications of this paper.

 

Quite aside from the questionable merits of the paper itself, it also cannot say anything about the other evidence which supports climate change, neither does it refute temparature data which isn't averaged but which does support the theory.

[huggles]

The main problem is the age old fact that Science is not allowed to get in the way of Political Policy.

 

Personally, I do not believe in 'Man Made Climate Change'!

However, I do believe that everyone should be 'encouraged' to reduce waste, pollution, etc. simply because its a good idea, it saves money and protects the 'local' environment.

 

Using 'good ideas' to introduce taxes is the wrong reason.

 

And desperately hiding behind quack science because you fear change is.....?

[StormWarrior]

Sorry Huggles, I refuse to be drawn into discussions about the causes and inmplications of Climate Change, in which EITHER sides argument, includes such phrases as

desperately hiding behind quack science

Mainly, because I am quite sure that nothing I say or do will change your viewpoint.

 

I have stated my position above, I have extensive (30 years) background in multi-discipline sciences. And from my knowledge, experience and study I have reached a viewpoint that represents my understanding of the subject based on available information and technology to date.

My contributions to 'saving the world' started in 1974, when I built my first solar heating system, first solar furnace, and powered equipment with original selenium solar cells. All this against a background where the general public believed that there was a mini ice age on the way, and the real threat to mankind was the spectre of atomic war.

 

I have long since realised, that the world doesn't want saving. So now I look after my little bit of it, in the knowledge that I can make a difference in 'my' world, until nature decides otherwise.

 

As for the rest of it, nothing can be done to solve anything until mankind wakes up and realises that like any ecosystem, the earth can only support a finite population of any particular species. And there are quite simply too many humans.

[huggles]

I have stated my position above, I have extensive (30 years) background in multi-discipline sciences

 

and what if I tell you I have 35 years?

 

Good for you, stormwarrior, I'm glad that you are living as sustainably as you can, even if it is for more pessimistic reasons than others! I do apologise, my quack science comment was not particularly aimed at you. I try not to engage in these debates myself as I sit in the middle ground and am likely to get the flack from both sides, but can't help myself occasionally!

 

I do see a lot of people worry about overpopulation and demand to know when and what politicians will do about it, this is interesting. Is it really true and would they seriously prefer governments to start controlling how many children people can have or sterilising them, for example, than driving less and using the train, turning the heating down, paying a bit more for their energy and food?

[dave]

Just a quick point, Al Gore was instrumental in creating the Internet (or ARPAnet as it was).

 

It's well documented. Just because people didn't believe his claim, does not make it untrue.

[magix]

Al Gore "invented the Internet" - resources

[dave]

""He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions," said Vint Cerf."

 

 

[WebFerret]

Sorry Huggles, I refuse to be drawn into discussions about the causes and inmplications of Climate Change, in which EITHER sides argument, includes such phrases as

 

Mainly, because I am quite sure that nothing I say or do will change your viewpoint.

 

I have stated my position above, I have extensive (30 years) background in multi-discipline sciences. And from my knowledge, experience and study I have reached a viewpoint that represents my understanding of the subject based on available information and technology to date.

My contributions to 'saving the world' started in 1974, when I built my first solar heating system, first solar furnace, and powered equipment with original selenium solar cells. All this against a background where the general public believed that there was a mini ice age on the way, and the real threat to mankind was the spectre of atomic war.

 

I have long since realised, that the world doesn't want saving. So now I look after my little bit of it, in the knowledge that I can make a difference in 'my' world, until nature decides otherwise.

 

As for the rest of it, nothing can be done to solve anything until mankind wakes up and realises that like any ecosystem, the earth can only support a finite population of any particular species. And there are quite simply too many humans.

 

 

You are absolutly on the button here - the ever increasing human population is becoming the biggest problem that cannot be allowed to continue if a global balance is to be maintained, if I may be so blunt.

 

An issue that back in history had natural means of control, by disease and wars ect - but now with ever increasing medical breakthroughs and a generally more peaceful society, these natural means have deminished greatly.

 

I don't beleive the hype behind government announcments of global warming - the Earth, as indeed the Sun, go through natual cycles with changes that affect climate over relative short time frames of a few hundred years. Locally to me (South England) we have a street named "Vine Street" because hundreds of years ago they grew grapes there - and was one of the major export commodities of the UK back then - and this was because the climate was then warmer! - Today, Kent is now successfully growing grapes again due to the recent increase in global temperature - and yet it wasn't that long ago that people ice-skated on the Thames!! - this recent 'warming' is nothing new - it's been going on for hundreds of years, way before the industial revolution!

 

I agree that we should all seek to utilize natual renewable energy wherever possible - it's simple commom sence (solar, wind, water ect). However, the simple fact is that more and more people are living in more and more technelogical developed environments, demanding greater and greater energy consumtion - something I feel governments have not stayed pace with in terms of energy supplies. The solution, as I see it ultimatly, would be in nuculer fusion (the same process the Sun uses to burn - not to be confussed with current nuclear reactors which work on a different process). To be able to harness nuclear fusion would be the answer to an almost unlimited supply of energy for the planets population with little or no waste. This is where governments should be focusing their research and money.

 

For current governments to 'bang on' about global warming and increased CO2 emmissions is missleading at the very least. CO2 (carbon dioxide) is not in itself harmful - in fact plants and trees require it to grow - so why are governments allowing the 'lungs' of the planet to be felled in such volumes (rainforests). CO2 is also stored in our oceans in large quantities by marine life. This is not the real issue governments have when they slap a tax on 4x4's and in the same breath announce the opening of an additional runway at Heathrow airport - govenments are on the 'band waggon' to extract taxes - as simple as that!

 

What should be being done is that governments should be reducing polution in general - all the chemicals that get released into our environment from manufacturing and transport ect. - but they seem to ignore this very real damaging longterm effect in favour of something they can tax more easily.

 

In your statement:

"I have long since realised, that the world doesn't want saving. So now I look after my little bit of it, in the knowledge that I can make a difference in 'my' world, until nature decides otherwise."

I tend to agree, sadly, with these sentiments.

 

My two pennith!

[Esio Trot]

I am also a big sceptic of the "man-made" element of global warming.

 

However, I am a strong believer that the Earth does have the facility for self-correction.

 

For example, I reckon that with the constant shift of the tectonic plates, it is quite possible that a similar event to Krakatoa might easily happen again.

 

This will have an immediate effect on the planet. In 2006 there was an article in the Telegraph called Krakatoa keeps the Earth cool that has great relevance.

[NitrousOxide]

Hi,

The Earth does indeed go through cycles as indeed does the Sun.

The Sun is currently brighter than at any time within the last 1000 years.

I also do not believe what the government tells us.

Why wantonly destroy greenfield areas, woods and forests for houses and roads yet bang on about CO2 which in actual fact plants need. The more CO2 you have the more oxygen the plants and trees produce.

Petrol is running out, they are making us use less but still making the same profit.

Why was a tax introduced on plastic bags(which are now bio degradable)?

Is it maybe that after petrol they require large quantities of oil to produce?

[magix]

It's now official, climate change has been deferred. Read the reports,

[MilkTrayMan]

It's now official, climate change has been deferred. Read the reports,

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Next decade 'may see no warming'

 

 

...

[MilkTrayMan]

Nuclear Power as an alternative to Fossil Fuels??...

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Nuclear's CO2 cost 'will climb'

 

...Australian academics think otherwise...:o

 

 

...

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Just because people didn't believe his claim, does not make it untrue.

 

I disagree.

 

David Icke claimed he is the Son of God. He is not.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Was not Britain at various times a desert, ice capped and a forest?

 

Is it not the oceans that naturally produce 98% of co2 that could never be controlled?

 

Where was global warming in the UK last summer? Or this summer, considering the long range forecast?

 

Why are 100 or 200 year trends significant when, in the great scheme of things, it is like comparing a pebble to Everest?

 

The very first thing this government, or any other, will do about this subject is scaremonger and then propose the same solution. Tax it.

 

Complete bunk.

[raydetinu]

Could not agree more; all a [problem].

People justyfing there existance etc. planet has gone through huge cycles in the past and will do in the future. what we do will have little or no influence. however food, fuel, population, war etc. are real and it these that we need to focus on.

But our goverment gives £50bn to buy a private bank!!! That would have made big difference to the Health service, cut fuel tax etc. What is going on!

[huggles]

David Icke claimed he is the Son of God. He is not.

 

Hmm, that's some strong and relevant empirical evidence you have right there...

 

Was not Britain at various times a desert, ice capped and a forest?

 

Yes, the climate seems to move in cycles - that BBC article clearly says that. The warming we are seeing now is not in line with the way those cycles predict it should be going, it is in the wrong direction and faster, something unusual seems to be going on. We are outside the realm of normal and probably natural variability.

 

Is it not the oceans that naturally produce 98% of co2 that could never be controlled?

 

The planet controls these natural CO2 levels itself naturally and even controls some of the anthropogenic emissions, which is lucky for us. This is called the carbon cycle, most people learn about it at primary school. Since the industrial revolution however, humans have been putting more and more CO2 into the atmosphere without removing it and at levels higher than the natural systems for maintaining the levels can cope with causing atmospheric CO2 to increase since that time. Whatever the total amounts of CO2 going in and out "naturally," humans have upset the balance by not removing what we put in. It is the anthropogenic emissions that must (and indeed can) be controlled.

To blame the oceans for increased CO2 in the atmosphere is pathetic, like blaming the air you breathe out.

 

Also, interested to know where you got that 98% figure from? A reliable source was it?

Atmosphere, Climate & Environment Information Programme

 

Where was global warming in the UK last summer? Or this summer, considering the long range forecast?

 

Why are 100 or 200 year trends significant when, in the great scheme of things, it is like comparing a pebble to Everest?

 

What I like about these two points is that the second directly contradicts the first so I don't even need to answer them because you have rubbished your own arguments.

 

The very first thing this government, or any other, will do about this subject is scaremonger and then propose the same solution. Tax it.

 

Yeah, cos politicians love putting up taxes, don't they? Still, if you say it enough it will make you feel better about not wanting to change your behaviour.

 

Complete bunk.

 

I agree - climate skeptic's arguments do tend to look like complete bunk when you look at the evidence. Unless you have any more arguments that are actually convincing?

[magix]

However the proponents of global warming/ climate change always conveniently forget to mention is that water vapour is by far and away the most prevalent factor in trapping heat in. When due we start banning/ recycling cloud formations. carbon is miniscule in comparison.

[magix]

In the beginning (the 70's) Global cooling is bringing on the new Ice age.

 

In the middle (the 90's) Global warming is going to dry out the world.

 

In the end (early 2000's) Oooh it's difficult to argue with all those who are actually coming up with real facts. Ok lets quietly change it to climate change.

[huggles]

However the proponents of global warming/ climate change always conveniently forget to mention is that water vapour is by far and away the most prevalent factor in trapping heat in. When due we start banning/ recycling cloud formations. carbon is miniscule in comparison.

 

more nonsense. too much water vapour in the air rains out, not enough and it evaporates from the ocean, again you will recall the water cycle from primary school, I presume: Met Office: Water cycle

 

when the air is warmed by other means, water vapour concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing feedback. the proportion of global warming attributable to water vapor is irrelevant then, such a number doesn't really exist because warming from water vapor responds to other causes - i.e. greenhouse gases.

 

any more?

[huggles]

In the beginning (the 70's) Global cooling is bringing on the new Ice age.

 

In the middle (the 90's) Global warming is going to dry out the world.

 

In the end (early 2000's) Oooh it's difficult to argue with all those who are actually coming up with real facts. Ok lets quietly change it to climate change.

 

Spurious. See here for a collection of material from the 70s: Science-type stuff

 

What we have now is a broad scientific consensus, how the media chooses to discuss the matter is quite separate. quite different to the 70s as you will find if you look through that link.

[magix]

This is where your arguement falls down. A true scientist does not conform to consensus. If this was so we would all still believe that the earth was the centre of the universe and the planet was flat. A true scientist will always push the boundaries. There are now over 500 well repected scientists that are questioning the kyoto agreement, some of who were not consulted on the political published document and profoundly disagree with it's content.

 

Further to your last post huggles I have just read this article linked to in your last post and it seems that this article linked here has no apparent conclusion.

 

Climate change: some basics