Climate Change is a Hoax

[TigerBright19]

Our school told us that the East Coast would have flooded by 2010 and the West Coast would have suffered a catastrophic earthquake wiping out millions.  It was never a question of if, but when.  Since it was all hogwash I can understand why many are sceptic about the whole immediate doomsday theories.  Global warming (or whatever they label it to reel in public interest) is exactly the same.  Same old politicians and celebrities voicing the same old doomsday scenarios that have been repeated for decades that never actually happen.  For better or worse, nobody's buying it, and the more distrust the public gain, the harder it will be to convince the public that what mankind does is destroying the planet.  e.g.

If a scientific theory reports that an asteroid will destroy Earth in 100 years, then all theories regarding 'save the planet' will be considered a waste of time.  So there has to be a convincing argument that no asteroids will hit the Earth.  This also applies to major earthquakes, nuclear war, and all theoretical phenomena that could wipe out humanity.  Asking the nations of the world to literally 'buy into one theory' and invest their future generations economies on a 'theory' with no guarantee of actual change or safety is pretty much an impossible thing to expect.

What is worse is that the 'climate change correction and prevention party' rely heavily on one political party (or at least appear to) which means if they want to convince the majority of the people to invest in their schemes then they are already starting on the wrong foot because any arguments they make will be regarded as political propaganda by the opposition.  They should be neutral and entirely independent from any government (like health care), rather than an integrated nationalized system within the government.

 

 

[Essan]

37 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

Our school told us that the East Coast would have flooded by 2010 and the West Coast would have suffered a catastrophic earthquake wiping out millions.  It was never a question of if, but when.  Since it was all hogwash I can understand why many are sceptic about the whole immediate doomsday theories.  Global warming (or whatever they label it to reel in public interest) is exactly the same.  Same old politicians and celebrities voicing the same old doomsday scenarios that have been repeated for decades that never actually happen.  For better or worse, nobody's buying it, and the more distrust the public gain, the harder it will be to convince the public that what mankind does is destroying the planet.

 

This is the problem. 

A sciencist says there is a chance X could happen in Y years, depending on Z

The media report X will happen - this becomes "common knowledge".

10 years later X still hasn't happened: Ergo the scientists were all wrong so why should we trust them?

Think about it ...... 

[Doug1029]

55 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

Our school told us that the East Coast would have flooded by 2010 and the West Coast would have suffered a catastrophic earthquake wiping out millions.  It was never a question of if, but when.  Since it was all hogwash I can understand why many are sceptic about the whole immediate doomsday theories.  Global warming (or whatever they label it to reel in public interest) is exactly the same.  Same old politicians and celebrities voicing the same old doomsday scenarios that have been repeated for decades that never actually happen.  For better or worse, nobody's buying it, and the more distrust the public gain, the harder it will be to convince the public that what mankind does is destroying the planet.  e.g.

The East Coast has flooded.  Since 2000, the sea level along the Atlantic seaboard has risen about 125mm (That's not quite 5 inches.).  It's not much of a flood (yet), but it is a flood.  In Manhattan and Miami Beach, water backs up in drains more often than it used to and low-lying areas get more flooding than they did in 2000.  Five inches is not as high as waves normally pile debris, but as the sea level rises, those wave piles rise and move inshore.  A few more inches of shoreline is eroded on the beach side - waves are always re-arranging beaches.  Most change in shorelines is the result of storms moving sand around.  Hurricanes often open new channels through barrier islands, piling the sand somewhere else.  I've been waiting for one to take out Mar-a-Lago, but it hasn't happened (yet).

Earthquakes aren't covered by climate science, but I'll risk an answer anyway -fools rush in....

Earthquake forecasts are couched in terms of probability.  If the USGS said there was a 30% chance of an earthquake on such-and-such a fault by 2010 and it didn't happen, then the result fell into the 70% side and the USGS was right either way.  After the time period has passed, probability no longer applies.  It happened or it didn't.  Probability forecasts are meaningless unless there's a time-limit on them.  That a particular fault will produce an earthquake is a 100% certainty.  But to be meaningful, one has to limit the time period and that reduces the probability.  There's a fault beneath Marshall, Colorado.  On one side there's a coal seam eight feet thick.  On the other side, that same coal seam is 12 feet thick.  Above the coal seam, there's no evidence of a fault - that fault hasn't moved since the Coal Age.  But it will move someday.  And that's the difference between a 1% chance that it will move in the next 1000 years and a certainty that it will move - someday.

People not conversant in science read the probability figures, don't understand them, and as a result, ignore them.  That seems to be what happened in your case.  The culprit may have been a textbook writer, the teacher, a newspaper writer - lots of candidates.  But somebody started the rumor and the rest just copied it, turning the original mistake into their own mistake.  Nobody did his homework and looked up the original paper.  That's how you avoid these mistakes:  go back to the original article - the one where the scientist reported his forecast.  Read it and see what he/she really said.  Don't rely on somebody else's (mis)understanding.

Doug

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, Aaron2016 said:

Asking the nations of the world to literally 'buy into one theory' and invest their future generations economies on a 'theory' with no guarantee of actual change or safety is pretty much an impossible thing to expect.What is worse is that the 'climate change correction and prevention party' rely heavily on one political party (or at least appear to) which means if they want to convince the majority of the people to invest in their schemes then they are already starting on the wrong foot because any arguments they make will be regarded as political propaganda by the opposition.  They should be neutral and entirely independent from any government (like health care), rather than an integrated nationalized system within the government.

That's in the United States.  Most of the rest of the world doesn't see it as a political issue.

That all got started here when Al Gore produced his "Inconvenient Truth."  If anybody other than a former political figure had done it, it wouldn't be political.  But he did, and that started a political fight that is still raging.  Al Gore just made the problem worse.

The other side is mostly the result of fossil-fuel-based industries trying to spread conflicts to keep governments from regulating them.  They say that conversion is going to cost a lot, but wind is a cheaper source of energy than coal or oil.  Convert to wind and we can save money (The US is doing it with or without Donald Trump).  We are already generating 20% of our power from wind and 30% is the immediate target.  Eventually, we could generate 50% or more from wind.  And in another five years, solar (perovskites) may put wind out of business by under-cutting its price.  An era of cheap, clean energy is upon us and the coal-and-oil people are getting desperate.

My daughter is one of them:  she works on gas wells.  She says that another 20 years will do in the drilling business and she plans to have another career ready to go by then.  Coal and oil will always be around, bumping along the bottom of the economy.  But their hayday is past and coal at least, is gradually being phased out.  No amount of Trumpian rhetoric will change the fact that coal is more expensive and in shorter supply and even "clean" coal is dirty and a hazard to health.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

20 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

That is the difference between what the temperature curve would look like with AGW and without it.  Plot them both on the same coordinates and the difference stands out.

Doug

I wish you would show your work. I still don't think you've shown that CO2 vs. natural heat would be any different from each other. 

[Doug1029]

24 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

I wish you would show your work. I still don't think you've shown that CO2 vs. natural heat would be any different from each other. 

We're not talking about MY work.  I was simply telling you how to do it yourself.

Basically, you develop a model the uses [CO₂] and time (year) to predict temperature:

Then you run your model again, but keep [CO₂] constant at the starting value.

Yow now have two models:  one with CO2 and one without.  The change due to CO2 is the difference in those models.

These are just two averaged curves.  If you want to show how the no-CO2 curve would look using the actual record, take the difference between the CO2 estimate and the actual climate record (the one you based your CO2 curve on) and add it to the corresponding no CO2-value.  That will show all the ups and downs and wiggles in the temperature record without CO2 in the model.  Graph this dataset on the same coordinates as the original dataset and you have a direct comparison of with and without CO2.

 

First, build your dataset.  Use three variables, temperature, year and [CO₂].  The Keeling curve will get you back to 1959.  Before that, use that ice-core data you posted.  You may have to model the CO2 curve and use it to fill in missing data.  When you've got that done, get back to me.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

Doug, 

I've basically done that before. CO2 + year is basically meaningless as CO2 levels rise and years pass so that plot just looks like a straight line going up. If temps are rising and they have been, then it certainly looks like a correlation between all three, but that doesn't prove a causation. 

[lost_shaman]

Here is CO2+year+Texas temps.

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

Doug, 

I've basically done that before. CO2 + year is basically meaningless as CO2 levels rise and years pass so that plot just looks like a straight line going up. If temps are rising and they have been, then it certainly looks like a correlation between all three, but that doesn't prove a causation. 

There's a problem here.  The idea is to predict temperature given [CO₂] and time.  This model predicts [CO₂].  Temperature isn't even in it.  Use [CO₂] and time as your independent variables and temperature as the dependent variable.  Use all three at once.

It won't prove cause-and-effect.  All it will do is show the difference between rising [CO₂] and steady-state [CO₂].

Doug

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

Here is CO2+year+Texas temps.

That's a start.  Now use [CO₂] and time to predict temperature.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

That's a start.  Now use [CO₂] and time to predict temperature.

Doug

How would I do that? There doesn't seem to be much of a correlation, but just looking at the raw numbers I certainly can see El Nino years. I see a gradual rise in temps too until after 2000 when Solar activity began to slow and now see temps slowly falling after the 2014/2015 El Nino, mean while C02 keeps rising along steadily. 

Edit: If there is a CO2 component in the raw data it looks like it's being dwarfed by Solar activity and El Nino's to me. 

Edited October 19, 2018 by lost_shaman

[SHaYap]

Just curious here ... with the hole in the ozone gradually diminishing this past decade, wouldn't there also be a need to reflect the effects in processing the subsequently collected data ?

~

[lost_shaman]

23 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Just curious here ... with the hole in the ozone gradually diminishing this past decade, wouldn't there also be a need to reflect the effects in processing the subsequently collected data ?

~

I'm sure. Ozone, like H2O, and CO2, is a molecule made up of three atoms and it also, as such, is a greenhouse gas that can trap heat by absorption of infrared radiation. It's a good question you asked that seems to be overlooked in large part. Since Ozone gathers above both poles it may explain some of the Polar heating we've seen in the last 30 years since restriction on CFC's have been put into place and naturally occurring Ozone has been slowly building back up in the Stratosphere. 

[SHaYap]

2 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Since Ozone gathers above both poles it may explain some of the Polar heating we've seen in the last 30 years since restriction on CFC's have been put into place and naturally occurring Ozone has been slowly building back up in the Stratosphere. 

I thought it was because of Ozone depletion that was causing all the problems.

~

 

Quote

 

Ozone Destruction - The Ozone Hole

 

www.theozonehole.com/ozonedestruction.htm

When ultraviolet light waves (UV) strike CFC* (CFCl3) molecules in the upper atmosphere, a carbon-chlorine bond breaks, producing a chlorine (Cl) atom. The chlorine atom then reacts with an ozone (O3) molecule breaking it apart and so destroying the ozone. ... A single CFC molecule can destroy 100,000 ozone molecules.

 

~

 

 

Since the ozone hole has somewhat recovered or healed / closed (as documented and verified) due to restrictions on CFCs , wouldn't that effect have been positive in moving away from a gradual inclination towards a temperature rise ?

~

 

 

[lost_shaman]

13 minutes ago, third_eye said:

I thought it was because of Ozone depletion that was causing all the problems.

~

 

 

Since the ozone hole has somewhat recovered or healed / closed (as documented and verified) due to restrictions on CFCs , wouldn't that effect have been positive in moving away from a gradual inclination towards a temperature rise ?

~

 

 

No. Ozone can trap infrared (IR) photons which is the way the Earth sheds heat into space, ultraviolet (UV) photons will give you sunburns and cause skin cancer. If you turn on a Heater of a burner on your stove you can feel the heat even at a distance, this is IR photons that are striking your skin, UV is something you can't feel but is much more energetic than IR and so it penetrates your skin deeply and causes damage to your cells. Ozone in the Stratosphere blocks UV light from the Sun and so you can spend more time outside without getting Sunburned but Ozone also can trap the outgoing IR photons the Earth sheds as heat and thus can contribute to some Atmospheric warming. 

Edited October 20, 2018 by lost_shaman

[SHaYap]

32 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

No. Ozone can trap infrared (IR) photons which is the way the Earth sheds heat into space, ultraviolet (UV) photons will give you sunburns and cause skin cancer. If you turn on a Heater of a burner on your stove you can feel the heat even at a distance, this is IR photons that are striking your skin, UV is something you can't feel but is much more energetic than IR and so it penetrates your skin deeply and causes damage to your cells. Ozone in the Stratosphere blocks UV light from the Sun and so you can spend more time outside without getting Sunburned but Ozone also can trap the outgoing IR photons the Earth sheds as heat and thus can contribute to some Atmospheric warming. 

 

There are two sides to the layers ...

 

Quote

 

~

Is There a Connection Between the Ozone Hole and Global Warming ...

 

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and.../ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html

Jump to Does global warming have an impact on the stratospheric ozone layer? - This warming-cooling dynamic creates conditions that lead to ozone loss ...

 

~

 

The Ozone Layer and Climate Change — Global Issues

 

www.globalissues.org › Issues › Articles

It has been depleting for many years now. Scientists have said that currently over Antarctica the Ozone hole is three times the size of the United States and ...

 

~

Remember the Ozone Hole? Now There's Proof It's Healing.

 

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/.../antarctic-ozone-hole-healing-fingerprint...

Jun 30, 2016 - Scientists find evidence that the hole is finally shrinking, thanks to ... It gives us hope that we shouldn't be afraid to tackle large environmental problems. ... Scientists have long thought the ozone layer was recovering slowly, ...

 

~

 

Ozone depletion - Wikipedia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

Ozone depletion describes two related events observed since the late 1970s: a steady lowering ... The main cause of ozone depletion and the ozone hole is manufactured chemicals, especially manufactured ..... Public misconceptions and misunderstandings of complex issues like the ozone depletion are common.

 

~

 

Ozone layer not recovering over populated areas, scientists warn ...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/.../ozone-layer-not-recovering-over-populated-areas-scient...

Feb 6, 2018 - The greatest losses in ozone occurred over Antarctica but the hole there has been closing since the chemicals causing the problem were ...

 

~

 

 

[lost_shaman]

5 minutes ago, third_eye said:

 

There are two sides to the layers ...

 

 

Ozone tends to gather at the Poles in the Stratosphere. So its not a surprise that it's not increasing over populated areas. It is interesting that most depletion occurred over Antarctica when most CFC's were released in the Northern Hemisphere. That said, I'm not sure what you want me to say about the five articles you posted. I don't have all the time in the world so is there something specific you would like to quote from one of them that you would like me to address?

[SHaYap]

3 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

I don't have all the time in the world so is there something specific you would like to quote from one of them that you would like me to address?

Nahhhh ... don't go bending your schedule on my account. I was just wondering about where in the back and forth actually involves the Ozone Hole being there or not.

~

[lost_shaman]

1 minute ago, third_eye said:

Nahhhh ... don't go bending your schedule on my account. I was just wondering about where in the back and forth actually involves the Ozone Hole being there or not.

~

I think it's a good question as to why the depletion occured  mostly over the Southern Pole when most of the CFC's were released in the Northern Hemisphere and I honestly don't know the answer to that question. Depletion occured over the North Pole too but it seems not to have been as bad or recovered more quickly. Maybe the tilt of the Earth along with the Coriolis effect played a role in dragging CFC's towards the South Pole. The Stratosphere where Ozone tends to reside naturally is roughly static so that plays a role I'm sure.

[Doug1029]

On 10/19/2018 at 4:23 PM, lost_shaman said:

How would I do that? There doesn't seem to be much of a correlation, but just looking at the raw numbers I certainly can see El Nino years. I see a gradual rise in temps too until after 2000 when Solar activity began to slow and now see temps slowly falling after the 2014/2015 El Nino, mean while C02 keeps rising along steadily. 

Edit: If there is a CO2 component in the raw data it looks like it's being dwarfed by Solar activity and El Nino's to me. 

This is where statistics comes into play.  You can include a solar component in the model as I did once before on UM.  The problem with solar is that it is a decadal oscillation that returns to its starting point every few years.  As a result, it cancels itself out of a centennial- or millenial-scale dataset.  You can include it in the model for jollies if you like, or you can include it and hold it constant at, say, 1/4 cycle.  Not including it increases the variance of your model and makes it harder to find a model with an adequate fit.

First, write a general model (equation) that you think might reflect what is happening (In a general model the coefficients are replaced with values like b0, b1, b2, etc.), or look one up in a book or research paper.  Then fit the model to your dataset (regression analysis).  This is a statistical process.  There are computer programs to do it.  Some, like SPLUS, are relatively inexpensive, or if you have money to burn and want an extremely versatile program, use SAS.

Either way, this model needs to have both CO2 and time as X-variables and temp as a y-variable.

I have not specified my own model so that you write a model that supports your contention that solar is a major component of temperature rise.

If you like, I will present my own model and analysis, but it will have to wait until I have a little more time as that will require assembling the datasets before I can do the analysis.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

This is where statistics comes into play.  You can include a solar component in the model as I did once before on UM.  The problem with solar is that it is a decadal oscillation that returns to its starting point every few years.  As a result, it cancels itself out of a centennial- or millenial-scale dataset. 

I'm not sure that is truely accurate, the first half of the 20th century started with a weak Solar Cycle and then had average Solar activity until the second half of the century where we saw very high levels of Solar activity until just recently with the beginning of the 21st century Solar Cycles 23 and now 24 with very weak activity. So yes these periods have been multi-decadal but not equal over time. i.e. not returning to it starting point on a multi-decadal time scale. 

 

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

First, write a general model (equation) that you think might reflect what is happening (In a general model the coefficients are replaced with values like b0, b1, b2, etc.), or look one up in a book or research paper.  Then fit the model to your dataset (regression analysis).  This is a statistical process.  There are computer programs to do it.  Some, like SPLUS, are relatively inexpensive, or if you have money to burn and want an extremely versatile program, use SAS.

This simply is not an option for me at this time, using a Chromebook that doesn't have an internal hard drive. It would have to be a free program that runs in the Cloud or whatever. 

[Doug1029]

41 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

I'm not sure that is truely accurate, the first half of the 20th century started with a weak Solar Cycle and then had average Solar activity until the second half of the century where we saw very high levels of Solar activity until just recently with the beginning of the 21st century Solar Cycles 23 and now 24 with very weak activity. So yes these periods have been multi-decadal but not equal over time. i.e. not returning to it starting point on a multi-decadal time scale. 

So include a solar variable, like sunspot count, in the model.  Then it won't matter how much gets canceled out.  In the model without a solar variable, if you don't start and stop at the same point in the solar cycle, there will be some residual error.  Including a solar variable eliminates that possibility.  At any rate, there is random error associated with any variable, so you won't get a perfect fit anyway.

You can run the calculation for a linear model on EXCEL.  More-recent editions have built-in programming for a straight line model.  For longer models, EXCEL is a pain.  You are always having to go back, find mistakes and fix them.  It can take a whole day to do a four-term regression this way and it will only find linear coefficients.

I'll set up a demo when I have a little more time.  I'm going home just now - my daughter - the geologist - is coming over for dinner.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

Nice, hope you have a great time with your Daughter! I certainly enjoy mine when they get to come see me.

[Doug1029]

19 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

I'm not sure that is truely accurate, the first half of the 20th century started with a weak Solar Cycle and then had average Solar activity until the second half of the century where we saw very high levels of Solar activity until just recently with the beginning of the 21st century Solar Cycles 23 and now 24 with very weak activity. So yes these periods have been multi-decadal but not equal over time. i.e. not returning to it starting point on a multi-decadal time scale. 

 As it turns out, there is an interaction model that provides a good fit.

I used the JD column from NOAA's list of temperature anomalies:  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

NOAA's list of CO2 concentrations taken from ice cores at the South Pole (The one you posed awhile back) and

the NCDC listing of sunspots as a proxy for solar activity.

I coded year with t = 1 in 1880 and adding 1 each year thereafter.

The general model is:  b0 + b1*t + b2*CO2 + b3*CO2*Sunspots + b4*Sunspots

The resulting ANOVA table is:

Model df = 4, Error df = 127 Total df = 131

Model SS = 9.602, Error SS = 1.7217 Total SS = 11.3232

Model MS = 2.4005  Error MS = 0.0136

F(4,127) = 177.13  i <0.0001

r^2 = 0.848 and s = 0.117

The coefficients are:  b0 = -3.2014  b1 = -0.00018  b2 = 0.00992  b3 = 5.87E-06  b4 = -0.00156

This model yields an estimated temperature anomaly of -0.27 degrees C for 1900 and 0.65 degrees C for 2010.

Now replace the CO2 variable with 295.7 (the [CO₂] for 1900).  The estimated mean global temp for 2010 is -0.29 degrees C.

Subtract these (algebraically):  0.65 - (-0.29) = 0.94 degrees C.  That is how much CO2 is warming the earth in 2010 over what it was doing in 1900..

 

The maximum sunspot count was:  189.9 in 1957 and the minimum was 1.4 in 1913.  The difference is 188.5.  Multiply that by the Sunspot coefficient (b4) and you get the maximum difference that sunspots alone could make:  -0.29.  And that brings up a strange result:  the more sunspots, the lower the temperature, at least for this term.

But that is without the interaction term:  CO2 and Sunspot count are enhancing each other:  the more CO2, the more a sunspot counts.  And this term (b3) has a positive coefficient (0.00000587).  The greatest value of CO2*Sunspot was 59767.4 in 1957.  The smallest was 434.4 in 1913, a difference of 59333.0.  Multiply this by the coefficient and you have the greatest difference the interaction term could have made:  0.35 degrees C.  This would tend to occur at exactly the same time the sunspot term is at its lowest, cancelling out the negative term and leaving a slight positive balance of about 0,06 degrees.  The interaction term is offsetting the sunspot term.  Because these variables are not in phase, they won't always cancel each other out so nicely.

b2 is the CO2 coefficient.  The maximum value is 389.21 in 2010 and the minimum is 295.7 in 1900.  The difference is 93.51.  Multiply that by the coefficient (0.00992) and you get 0.93 degrees C, the amount CO2 contributed to warming, neglecting interaction.

b1 is negative, indicating a downward trend in temps taken over the entire century.  This is consistent with long-term climate cycles.  So warming is coming almost completely from CO2 and sunspots with most of the sunspot contribution coming through an interaction with CO2.

 

Disclaimer:  this is only one model with an 85% correlation with temps.  There are other models, most without the interaction term to mess up the interpretation.  The big lesson here is that CO2 and Sunlight work together to affect temperatures.

Doug

[rodentraiser]

And then there's this as well:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/from-virginia-to-alaska-communities-are-sinking-into-rising-seas/ar-BBOJY8U

I've read about the Tangier Island one before. They're losing a lot of land. The one thing that I'm afraid will happen if the people of Tangier Island have to move to the mainland is they'll lose their dialect. They speak a form of English that is very old and hard to understand. I was able to hear some of it on The Story of English and I don't think it's something that should be lost.

 

Edited October 23, 2018 by rodentraiser