The Last Frost

So Called "Myth" #6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

Their Argument In A Nutshell: In 1996, some lines were deleted from the final draft of a report on global warming released by the UN. The lines were as follows:

1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute  the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”

2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

They then say that there is no proof man causes significant global warming. [Read their original argument here - Myth #6]

The Truth: Who ever argued that the proof of anthropogenic warming was in this report? The real proof will be when our major cities are under 200 feet of water. In the meantime, we can do our best to look at the data and draw on our trusted scientists to make educated guesses about the future.

Seriously though, whether or not those two lines were deleted from the final report or not, it's an 11 year old report they're talking about. We have learned a lot in the last 11 years and it's a fallacy to assume the scientific doubts from 11 years ago supersede the discoveries made since.

In 1996, there was a backlash against these deleted lines made by climate change skeptics, the most vocal had ties to oil companies of course. What these folks don't mention though, is who put the lines in the report to begin with and why they were deleted. Do I know? Hell no, but I wouldn't go so far as to discount an entire report based on some omitted sentences when I have no clue why they were deleted in the first place.

Speculation is fine, but it's just that… speculation. I'd like to see some proof that these lines were deleted deliberately by the leaders of 180 nations just to manipulate the public and other governments into accepting that climate change is real. I mean what's more likely? That the UN is trying to secretly manipulate the world down a path of global economic change for no good reason? Or is it really just that there might be some weight to the work of thousands of scientists who say our current system is unsustainable? WTF people?

As for there being no scientific "proof" that man-made global warming exists… there will never be perfect proof until man stops pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, or the effects manifest; whichever comes first. Hell, if the Earth's temperature jumped up 20 degrees tomorrow, there would still be people who would say humans weren't responsible.

So for posterity, here are a few articles all published in the last 4 years, that suggest proof of anthropogenic warming. For god's sake, even George W. Bush can admit to anthropogenic global warming, just check out #3.

1) Scientists claim final proof of global warming - [www.mng.org.uk]

2) New proof that man has caused global warming - [www.timesonline.co.uk]

3) Humans cause global warming, US admits - [news.bbc.co.uk]

Fuel from water is not a new idea. Simply add electricity and it's easy to split water into it's elemental components, hydrogen and oxygen. Get those gases near a flame and boom, the energy you just added gets suddenly released through an explosion which turns the two gases back into nothing but water again. It's called electrolysis and you can do it in your living room if you're not afraid of a little water and electricity. 

So where does the conspiracy come in? Well, there have been several people who have claimed to have figured out a way to split water so efficiently that they get more power from the burning of the resultant gases than what was put in. Stan Meyer was just one of those people, except he actually has some evidence to back up his claims. 

Imagine powering a car from L.A. to NY on nothing but 22 gallons of water. Stan had a working prototype of a dune buggy that could do just that, or so he claimed. In fact he had plans to mass-market the invention. Too bad he was murdered in 1998 and the dune buggy and all his technology was stolen.

So again, where does the conspiracy theory come in?  Well, nowhere except that he had complained about receiving death threats from oil companies. It's an interesting story, true or not, but I'm not going to go into what I think. The evidence is out there… check it out, it definitely makes for some good reading.

Inventor Of Water Powered Car Murdered? - [Growing Growing Gone via Digg.com]

So Called "Myth" #5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

Their Argument In It's Entirety: Normally I try to summarize their arguments but this one is too dense, I didn't want you to miss a bit.

"Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove"anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover." [12/21/2006, Myth #5, FriendsofScience.org]

The Truth: Half of their argument might actually be based in fact amazingly… but I'll get to that later. They start off by saying that computer models can be made to verify anything based on the input parameters. This is true, computers can be made to play Quake or Doom, they can be made to surf the web for porn and even run scientific simulations. Computers can do just about anything if you tweak the input parameters enough. It's a ridiculous argument to make.

Seriously though, computer models are incredibly difficult to create, because it involves taking an analog world with an infinite number of variables, slicing it up in any multitude of subjective ways and then tweaking it until it's thought to be accurate enough to predict the future.

What they conveniently don't mention, is that scientists don't just guess at their variables run the simulation and hope for the best. They use this new thing called the scientific method, that these guys are obviously such fans of, to determine how to setup the simulations properly. Also any good climate model will be tested against the past so that the model's results can be reality-checked and tweaked accordingly. If the model can't predict the past accurately then it's pretty much assumed it won't predict the future accurately either.

Although it's true that they don't necessarily prove anything, they are the best method we have for predicting the future and are a hell of a lot more accurate than a crystal ball.

These guys really put their foot in their mouths when they argue that computer models cannot predict the effect of solar radiation on our climate, which they admit is cyclical. If it's cyclical then by it's very nature it can be predicted and modeled. Not that that matters, since the effect of the sun's natural radiation cycles has been shown to have a miniscule effect on global climate changes on its own.

Tom Wigley, a co-author of a scientific review published in Nature in September 2006, "Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness". [TerraDaily, 2006]

Let's be fair now though, there is recent scientific evidence that suggests solar radiation fluctuations may affect the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth. The studies suggest that cosmic rays may play a part in upper-atmosphere cloud formation which could affect the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface. It is possible that an increase in solar intensity could disrupt these rays and thus disrupt upper atmosphere cloud formation which could in-turn warm the Earth. Congrats Friends of Science you've got one partially correct this time. 1 out of 20+ ain't bad, you've won the lottery of scientific fact… congratulations. 

Of course they did forget to mention a few things about the whole cosmic ray disturbance thing. First of all, it is much more inconclusive science than the whole CO2 causes global warming thing that they think is full of scientific holes. It's a relatively new idea and hasn't been substantially tested or verified yet, so the jury is still out. Also even if it's 100% true that the sun contributes to global warming we still have the problem of human produced CO2 which is still heating the globe. One of these things we can't control, that's kind of the point of this whole climate crisis thing. Fix what you can control, not what you can't.

Common misconceptions about global warming - [Friends of Science]

So Called "Myth" #4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

Their Argument In A Nutshell: There are more greenhouse gases in our atmosphere than CO2. There's water vapor and clouds (Clouds a greenhouse gas? WTF?), methane, ozone and many others. CO2 constitutes just .037% of our atmosphere and water vapor and clouds alone are responsible for an estimated 60% of the greenhouse effect thus overpowering the effect of the other gases. I quote right off their site, "Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact".[Read their original argument here - Myth #4]

The Truth: No shit Watson! Climate scientists don't mention it when discussing anthropogenic climate change because it's irrelevant. The burning of fossil fuels isn't pumping vast quantities of methane, ozone and water vapor into our atmosphere, it's pumping in CO2. No one is arguing whether CO2 is the most common or not. If you want to talk about atmospheric composition, save it for a high school level Earth Studies course, that's where it's relevant. 

The main point that climate change experts are trying to make is that humans as a species are outputting vast amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere which is disrupting the balance of naturally occurring greenhouse gases in our environment. We are overwhelming our planets carbon cycle, producing more CO2 than our planet's currently known systems can cope with. This CO2 is output in vast quantities, which warms the Earth, acidifies the oceans which is killing ocean life and makes some plants grow better which is actually good. But in general the gas has an impact on most every living thing across the globe and for us, the impacts have a huge potential for harm.

This so called "myth" was invented to cloud the real issue and was never a part of the debate on climate change. Speaking of clouds, they actually list clouds as a greenhouse gas. Clouds reflect sunlight away from the Earth and actually have a cooling effect, water vapor is a greenhouse gas and there's a big difference. This is a glaring example of how these "Friends of Science" really don't pay attention to the whole science thing.

Lastly their whole thing about the other gases overpowering the impact of CO2 misses the point entirely. All these gases contribute to the greenhouse effect which they confuse with global warming. The greenhouse effect is a wonderful thing that keeps our Earth's climate very comfortable, without it, our globe would be colder than a Minnesota winter. It doesn't mean that increasing the quantity of one gas, whether it's in the minority or not, won't have a significant effect. If you want to hear more about this check out, "Why Do Human Made Greenhouse Gases Matter When Water Vapor Is The Most Potent Greenhouse Gas?"

Onto the next myth!

Common misconceptions about global warming - [Friends of Science]

So Called "Myth" #3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

Their Argument In A Nutshell: Yes, human produced CO2 has increased over the last 100 years but there is no proof CO2 causes global warming. Actually, global warming which is caused by the sun, results in increased CO2 levels. So CO2 is the result of warming not the cause, and there's a lot of evidence to prove it. [Read their original argument here - Myth #3]

The Truth: There are only two things these guys got right on this one. First, they admit CO2 levels have been rising an average of .4% annually for the last 100 years or so. Although I would bet they chose that statistic deliberately because it sounds like such a small number. Here's the same statistic from a slightly different perspective; since 1958, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen by more than 20%. It's the same amount, .4% annually and it's also true, but 20% in 49 years has a lot more impact than .4% annually in my opinion.

Second, global warming can in fact lead to increased atmospheric CO2 by a process known as a positive feedback loop, which you can read about in a previous post of mine if like. CO2 leads to warming, which leads to more CO2, which leads to more warming until some other counter balancing process takes off (hopefully) and counteracts the trend. When they talk about a lot of evidence to back up their claim that CO2 is the result of temperature increase, they must have been talking about these loops.

Anyway, you might have noticed how in their argument, they actually admit that humans have produced this .4% annual rise in atmospheric CO2. Yet if you read part 1 of 10 in this series of posts, you'll notice that they say they don't believe that humans cause global warming. So it seems like their whole argument is based on one thing, CO2 does not warm the planet. Because if CO2 did cause global warming, then their whole premise that humans don't cause climate change would be false by their own admission. Moving on…

Does CO2 cause global warming? That seems to be their big hang-up. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, not the only greenhouse gas, but one none-the-less. That is a known fact and you will never hear a self-respecting skeptic tell you otherwise. Greenhouse gases have a property that allows solar energy to pass through to the Earth's surface which is then warmed, but then they also trap some of the heat that would otherwise be radiated back out to space. Thus acting like a global greenhouse or a global blanket. By burning fossil fuels we are pumping huge amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere which makes that blanket of greenhouse gases thicker. Thicker blanket = warmer temperatures.

Using the "Friends of Science" own statements, humans have made our global blanket 20% thicker since 1958 when we started measuring atmospheric CO2. If you count all the way back to the industrial revolution, that blanket has been made even thicker by human produced CO2. Yet they still argue that humans don't cause global warming… am I missing something here?  

Common misconceptions about global warming - [Friends of Science]

So Called "Myth" #2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

Their Argument In A Nutshell: The hockey stick graph is incorrect because it failed to record several known dips and spikes in temperature. Also that it's a flawed 'computer construct'. [Read their original argument here - Myth #2]

The Truth: This argument is so completely incorrect I'm not sure they're even talking about the same 'hockey stick' graph. The hockey stick is a temperature graph covering the past 1,000 years in the Northern Hemisphere. It's also one of the key compilations of scientific data that shows recent temperature increases.

They give examples of several periods of known climate variation that are left off the graph. The Medieval Warm Period they say was left off which I see as clearly marked, they also mention the Little Ice Age, which I also see clearly marked.

Hold on a second now, they also mention a 30 year period from 1940-1970 when the globe was actually cooling, which then resulted in a global cooling scare. I don't know about you guys, but I see a clear dip during the period they were talking about and that part of the graph is based on actual temperature readings… so it damn well better be accurate.

As for the whole global cooling scare, keep in mind this was before we knew jack about the complexities of the environment we live in. In the early 40's we didn't even know that radiation was bad for you. Environmentalism didn't exist, environmental science was practically unheard of. So arguing that a global cooling scare some 35 -65 years ago has some bearing on current global warming trends, which are based on hard scientific data, is just plain irresponsible. 

But is the graph inaccurate?
The data is estimated, yes. But inaccurate to the point of irrelevancy like they want you think? Absolutely not.

Since accurate temperature records don't really exist before the mid 19th century, scientists have to use other methods to estimate the average temperature across the globe during these periods. Using what are known as proxy methods, climate scientists study things that have a correlation with temperature to then estimate actual temperatures. For instance, the width of tree rings has a correlation with temperature, as do the composition of trapped air bubbles in ice core samples. By studying these things, scientists can indirectly measure temperature where that data would otherwise not exist. That's how we end up with 1,000 years of temperature data and hence the hockey stick graph. It's simple scientific method, it's how we know about the dinosaurs and the concept of evolution.

The graph is not the result of a computer model like they suggest when they refer to the graph as a 'faulty computer construct'. They are miss-informed or they are lying, probably the later. 

Common misconceptions about global warming - [Friends of Science]

Friends of Science My Ass, more like friends of the devil! By devil I mean fossil fuel based energy companies. So these guys have a page on their site listing 10 global warming 'misconceptions', and all 10 are either phrased to mislead or are flat out bullshit… so I'm calling them out.

One myth debunked per-post, for a total of 10 posts. It's like the 12 days of Christmas and the 8 days of Hanukkah… averaged! Anyway, here's part 1 of 10. Read on…

These so called Friends of Science claim that the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is incorrect. Well in their own words, "we offer critical evidence that challenges the premises of the Kyoto Protocol and present alternative causes for climate change." Alright, so they are against the Kyoto Protocol, yet they acknowledge that climate change is occurring, just that it's not caused by people? Fair enough, they don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, so let's jump right into their bullshit global warming myths.

So Called "Myth" #1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

Their Argument In A Nutshell: That there has not been, "any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures" in the last 30 years. Warming has been shown in readings from ground stations, but those readings are invalid because the increase is within the range of natural variation. The ground stations also tend to be placed in areas which are increasing in population and therefore are subject to 'heat island' effects. [Read their original argument here - Myth #1]

The Truth: This is a carefully crafted argument that is designed to guide the reader towards a false conclusion while not actually saying anything false. They argued that there has been no "significant change in the long term RATE of increase". What they say is actually partially true, there hasn't been a significant change in the RATE of warming in the last 30 years, but there HAS been statistically significant warming. Even if the Earth were warming by 10 degrees per year their statement would still be true, that's why it's so misleading and that's why it's bullshit.

They then focus their energy on invalidating ground based data on the basis that they are not uniformly placed across the globe. This also might be a decent argument, but what they fail to recognize is that there is much more data available to climate scientists than just ground based measurements and they all point towards the same conclusion. Global warming is real and human activity is the main cause. There are ice core samples which help correlate atmospheric composition with past warming trends dating back thousands of years. There is now loads of satellite data rolling in which give us accurate big picture measurements which also point towards the same conclusion.

So pick on ground based measurements all you like, but it's not the whole truth.

Common misconceptions about global warming - [Friends of Science]

A quickie little gem from our old pal Senator Inhofe a republican from Oklahoma. "God is still up there" so don't worry about global warming, oh and by the way, the warming is caused by the sun. Sweet diversions…. check out the video clip after the jump.

UPDATE: The sun is pissed about being wrongfully accused of causing global warming and I think it's trying to knock out a few Fox News Satellites. Check it out here.

Inhofe: Don’t Worry About Global Warming Because ‘God’s Still Up There’ - [Think Progress]

'Smokey' Joe Barton, a beady eyed rat of a politician that I'm ashamed to share a birthday with, has been a long time proponent that global warming is bullshit. He's entitled to his opinion sure, but when you're a freakin' congressman it might be a good idea to at least attempt to stand up for the truth, but I digress.

Think Progress has recently suggested that part of the reason congress hasn't done a single thing to address global warming is because of Joe Barton and people like him. It's hard to argue that it's not true when you consider some of his statements about the issue.

He is the source of probably the single stupidest statement uttered seriously by a human being, "I cannot imagine any objective finding that CO2 is a pollutant," he said. "If that's true, God is a polluter." I wonder if he considers Mercury, Lead, or Arsenic pollutants, they're all made by god too.

So Barton, just in case you read this, here's an explanation of why your statement is stupid and wrong. Just because C02 occurs in nature doesn't mean it can't hurt us or our climate. There are lots of things in nature that are harmful if there's too much of it or if it's in the wrong place. Don't believe me? Next time you go swimming dive as deep as you can and then inhale as deeply as you can. Then if you survive, you'll understand that even water can be harmful to life. I'm sorry to break it to you like this Joe, but it's true, god isn't just a polluter, he's also trying to drown you.

Here's another gem of wisdom that he uttered in 2001, "as long as I am chairman, (regulating global warming pollution) is off the table indefinitely. I don't want there to be any uncertainty about that." Which is basically saying, "I will never consider any argument suggesting global warming is real, ever". What an intelligent and logical position to take! Especially when it's concerning an emerging science, with new data rolling in every day, with implications for the survival of every living thing on our planet.

So where does a human being with no background in climate science, get the nerve to say most of the world's leading climate scientists are wrong? If you're buddy buddy with big oil, I guess the nerve comes in the form a check. Opensecrets.org reports that he has received over a million dollars from oil and gas companies and another million from other energy companies, check out the full breakdown of his recieved contributions here. At least now we know who Joe Barton is really working for.

Barton has been in office since 1985, he's also (unfortunately for humanity) the chairman of the Energy & Commerce Committee. He has fought every attempt by congress to acknowledge the existence of and possibly start to remedy the effects of climate change. He has even been accused of harassing and intimidating climate researchers by both the Houston Chronicle and the National Academy of Sciences. Who would have thought that a Republican from Texas could be so backwards?

Joe has worked very diligently to earn this award, Senator Inhofe was a close runner up but he's just a bumbling twit so we let him off the hook this time. If any of you live in Texas, do the world a favor and fire this fool of a man, even if you have to wait until 2008 to do it. It's probably one of the most important things you could do for our country and the world as a whole. If you can't wait or you just want to tell the guy off, contact him here: Contact Joe Barton.

And the article that spawned this rant: 

'Smokey' Joe Barton Calls Global Warming Science ‘Absolute Nonsense,’ Vows To Fight CO2 Caps - [ThinkProgress.org]

More and more scientists are considering radical options dubbed geo engineering, to curb global warming. This is freaky scientific territory because we all know how good we as a species are at controlling our globe. It's like a drunk driver taking over the wheel for another drunk driver, you might get lucky and survive, but it's not a good idea… the new driver is still drunk.

Some of the strange ideas include: Building Huge mirrors in space to reflect sunlight away from the Earth. Or even better, injecting huge quantities of Sulfur Dioxide into the atmosphere to turn the skies yellowish-gray also with the goal of reflecting more light away. It doesn't sound too cool to me, I like our blue skies.

Another idea on the drawing board is to send boats throughout the oceans dumping iron particles into the water. This would result in a bloom of plankton which would then absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. The article mentions the potential problems that could arise when the plankton die. Their rotting mass leaching the oceans of oxygen; killing other sea life, which is not good.

This idea particularly irks me because all you have to do to see the flaw in the plan is to study water surrounding golf courses that treat their grass with fertilizers (see image). The fertilizer, which is basically grass food, washes off the course into surrounding water. The algae in that water then goes on a feeding and reproduction frenzy which is great for a while. Then huge amounts of the algae dies and begins to rot, effectively suffocating all life in the pond. It's not an experiment you would want to run on the world's oceans. 

It's good to know that we're trying to think on our feet at least, but the only way to control nature on a large scale is to let it control itself. Hopefully mankind will learn this lesson before nature decides she doesn't like us anymore.  

Read the ABC News article for more info on these and more ideas. 

Weird Science Getting New Respect, Just in Case » [ABC News]