Discussion > The Moral and Intellectual Poverty of Climate Alarm
The US NOAA, for example use a global network of over 200 sites.All well and good, Mr Clarke, but the curve that most people refer to when they are talking about CO2 increase is the Keeling Curve, which gets its data from just the one site, Mauna Loa.
Also, it would appear that not all those sites are in continuous use, or have been used for some time, now – one, it would appear, was used from 1979 to 1990 (there may be others, I haven’t checked all 227 of the filtered datasets). It will be interesting to see what sort of graphs they will generate – certainly the one just mentioned just so happens to be delivering about 2ppm per year. What a coincidence, eh? If they do return similar curves, then I think it is possible that we are looking at doctored data – as you say, the scientists happily admit that they do “doctor” the data they get on Mauna Loa by removing suspect readings, thus ensuring in their smugness that they get their 2ppm per year. Sweeeeet…..
Radical Rodent
Ok, so CO2 readings from Mauna Loa are unreliable because of a nearby volcano, but removing that contamination is 'doctoring' the data.
Thousands of measurements from around the globe showing a steady rise in the concentration of a well-mixed gas must be suspicious, it couldn't possibly be the case that the gigatonnes of CO2 we are emitting are not being just eaten by unicorns.
All from a fan of the work of George Ernst Beck and his wet chemical methods for sampling a trace gas.
They have a small 250 cc cylinder filled with air one end of which is connected to a rubber bulb. They opened both stopcocks and held the bulb outstretched in Mr. Roland Ploennige's arm and pumped the thing a 150-200 times. The flow of air through the cylinder is not constant. This (a) is pretty close to Mr. Roland Ploennige, (b) does not guarantee a complete exchange of air in the bulb, (c) encourages backflow from the opposite end which is pretty close to Mr. Roland Ploennige's armpit if not his mouth (d) is not much volume to work (e) it is not clear if the measurements were calibrated against standard samples. That is for starters.
Phil Clarke
The harm caused by the CO2 Alarm panic deserves a blog of its own, but there are some posts around that record some of the needless horrors, e.g. this Allan Macrae post, or within this broader list.
Here is a new one: the Boeing 737Max fiasco may have had as its root cause, the destructive headlong drive to reduce CO2 emissions: Eco madness.
'No one has said it explicitly yet, but this relentless pressure to reduce emissions appears to have been a significant factor in the disastrous safety failures of the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, which resulted in two fatal crashes in the past year, claiming 346 lives.
The warning from Boeing’s catastrophes is that climate ideology can have fatal consequences.'
(hat-tip: Climate Change Dispatch)
John Shade
John Shade
Boeing was headed towards where they are from the moment they merged with MD.
The present mess was predicted by long time Boeing engineers from the moment the MD execs and managers started rotting the culture at Boeing. I met a few who voted with their feet and baled out as soon as their pensions were workable - they *all* excoriated the incoming culture.
Look at the DC10 design / production fiasco - especially the saga of the cargo door - see the 1974 Paris crash that killed a neighbour of mine and 345 other people.
tomo
Thanks, Tomo, but I do not have a few spare terrabytes available to download the data, never mind the skills to process it accordingly, and have to rely on sources that have proven unreliable for clarification – the first OCO-2 satellite picture showed that the CO2 concentrations were NOT uniform, with the greatest concentrations NOT where they were supposed to be; i.e. over the industrialised areas, but actually over the rainforests and tropical oceans. This was initially explained as “seasonal burn-off”, which raised the point that, if seasonal burn-off can create so much more CO2 than industrialised areas, then perhaps we should be getting those areas more industrialised, to cut “carbon emissions”. Anyway, that picture was quickly withdrawn (with its explanation of the anomaly), then was tweaked a bit, and re-issued in a 3-D form to “make it more comprehensible” – cunningly, they made the view from the south, and amplified the elevations; now – ta-da! – the CO2, by the clever device of parallax, now appears to be over the industrialised areas! (Because, perhaps, the oh-so-clever “scientists” considered the viewing public to be too dim to spot the trick.) Phew! Another catastrophe of too much truth revealed was averted!
Anyhoo… As Mr Shade points out, this fuss over CO2 is just another diversion from reality, as it has nothing, whatsoever, to do with global warming/climate change/call it what you will; that, I’m afraid, falls upon the supplier of 99.9999% of our energy – the Sun. It is entering a quiescent stage now, by all accounts, so it is highly probable that we will soon be observing global cooling, perhaps on a truly frightening scale (i.e. ~1°/decade), which, while giving us the cool prospect of a frozen Thames, also gives us the high probability of failing crops and mass starvation – unless governments fall and let business do its job. Of course, the general panic in the media that we have to Do Something - NOW! is such that “something” does get done, so when this cooling does occur (heaven forfend!), the governments, media and general hangers-on can claim it as their “success” in averting catastrophe. Now, the once-healthy economies will be crippled, so there will be no defence against the new ice age, be it little or not, and the genuine catastrophe will be considerably worse than what they fed us about warming.
Radical Rodent
Am I imagining things or is there a fundamental contradiction in the attitude of climate extremists?
We hear all the time that mankind is a blight on the world, a cancer on the planet or some similar epithet. We are told that our population growth has exceeded the planet’s ability to support us and it’s only going to get worse.
So you would think that the alarmists would welcome some sort of apocalyptic, global collapse of our civil structures that would cut the human population back to “sustainable” levels.
Catastrophic climate change will, per their rhetoric, be just such an event.
Yet they campaign ceaselessly and use any means they can find to turn the world away from this self-destructive path (as they see it).
This seems totally contradictory. Surely they should welcome a looming armageddon as the means to cleanse the world of its human “infection”? So why don’t they promote fossil fuels and consumerism? After all, should their worst imaginings come true, nature would survive, as it always has done.
Puzzling.
( Also posted on John Shade’s long-running discussion thread which may be more appropriate.)
Mike Higton
@Mike some of them ARE crazy enough to think like that
but mostly they think they are the superwomen saving the world
..like the mad cat ladies
stewgreen
@TinyCO2 adds
The worried elite are in contradiction on all the things they fret about.
They are in a position to worry because they are very well off.
Like many religious types they are happy for the poor to suffer, since it's good for their souls.
Sort of 'I'll convert you if it kills you' mentality.
These people are also very compartmentalised in that they only consider one catastrophe at a time.
So they can decide that everyone needs to cut CO2 by making energy expensive
and at the the same time complaining that the poor can't keep warm, feed themselves or travel.
... basically they're b@stards.
stewgreen
@RR
the treatment of OCO-2 observation results indicates intellectual and moral cowardice on a rather grand scale.
In the run-up and the early days of the vehicle finally making orbit there was no shortage of scientific academics waving flags of interest Caltech and JPL had folk on the job iirc....
I bet even Phil can't find a link to a substantive paper based on the observed results from the CO2 instrument aboard OCO-2. Tumbleweed indeed.
I'm personally amazed it hasn't suffered a catastrophic tech failure.....
tomo
The impact of human emissions of carbon dioxide and methane on climate is an accepted central concern for current society. It is increasingly evident that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane are not simply a function of emissions but that there are myriad feedbacks forced by changes in climate that affect atmospheric concentrations. If these feedbacks change with changing climate, which is likely, then the effect of the human enterprise on climate will change. Quantifying, understanding, and articulating the feedbacks within the carbon–climate system at the process level are crucial if we are to employ Earth system models to inform effective mitigation regimes that would lead to a stable climate. Recent advances using space-based, more highly resolved measurements of carbon exchange and its component processes—photosynthesis, respiration, and biomass burning—suggest that remote sensing can add key spatial and process resolution to the existing in situ systems needed to provide enhanced understanding and advancements in Earth system models. Information about emissions and feedbacks from a long-term carbon–climate observing system is essential to better stewardship of the planet.
Picked up 9 citations already. (most papers receive 0 or 1)
See also
Crowell, S. et al.
The 2015-2016 Carbon Cycle As Seen from OCO-2 and the Global In Situ Network
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 7347–7376, 2019. doi:10.5194/acp-19-7347-2019.
Cited:7
Hakkarainen et al.
Analysis of Four Years of Global XCO2 Anomalies as Seen by Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2
Remote Sensing 11(7):850 · April 2019, DOI: 10.3390/rs11070850
Jiang, X., Yung, Y. L.
Global patterns of carbon dioxide variability from satellite observations
Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 47, 225-245, 2019. doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060447
Kong, Yawen; Chen, Baozhang; Measho, Simon
Spatio-Temporal Consistency Evaluation of XCO2 Retrievals from GOSAT and OCO-2 Based on TCCON and Model Data for Joint Utilization in Carbon Cycle Research
ATMOSPHERE Volume: 10 Issue: 7 Article Number: 354 Published: JUL 2019
Labzovskii, L; Jeong, Su-Jong Jeong; Parazoo, Nick
Working towards confident spaceborne monitoring of carbon emissions from cities using Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2
Remote Sensing of Environment, Volume 233, November 2019
Siabi, Zhaleh; Falahatkar, Samereh; Alavi, Seyed Jalil
Spatial distribution of XCO2 using OCO-2 data in growing seasons
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Volume: 244 Pages: 110-118 Published: AUG 15 2019
Just a few, all selected from the 33 published this year alone.
From <https://ocov2.jpl.nasa.gov/science/publications/>
Phil Clarke
Another day, another doozy: Illustrating the Corruption in Climate Science
One of the comments below the post:
'When I first looked at Global Warming papers some decades ago it was obvious that the authors were, by the standards of the physical sciences, rather dim. But I didn't see any evidence of dishonesty. That came later. Presumably some of the original authors wanted to cover up their incompetence. Presumably new people were attracted to the field who proposed to advance their careers by lying.
Which is why I now call it Goebbels Warming.' - kidmugsy
John Shade
There has been a substantial increase in most measures of Atlantic hurricane activity since the early 980s, the period during which high-quality satellite data are available. These include measures of intensity, frequency, and duration as well as the number of strongest (Category 4 and 5) storms. The ability to assess longer-term trends in hurricane activity is limited by the quality of available data. The historic record of Atlantic hurricanes dates back to the mid-1800s, and indicates other decades of high activity. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the record prior to the satellite era (early 1970s), and the further back in time one goes, the more uncertain the record becomes.
No error-bars on Maue's graph. Naughty, as the uncertainty prior to 1979 is huge.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00254.1
If that's a 'doozy' what would a dishonest damp squib look like?
Phil Clarke
PS PS I see 'Coyote' still has his post up about YUGE adjustments to the US surface temperatures.
The one where his adjustment totals are in Celsius and the real ones are in Farenheit.
What a doozy!
Phil Clarke
The impact of human emissions of carbon dioxide and methane on climate is an accepted central concern for current society.It might even be a real concern; however, that remains very different from a concern verified scientifically. Just applying science to the data provided from those planets with CO2 atmospheres and those with CH4 atmospheres does go to show that there really is no such thing as “greenhouse effect”, and that “greenhouse gases” have no influence on the climates, so there really is no cause for concern.
Quantifying, understanding, and articulating the feedbacks within the carbon–climate system at the process level are crucial if we are to employ Earth system models to inform effective mitigation regimes that would lead to a stable climate.True – though the present modus operandi seems to be: “Assume the worst and then get everything to fit with that picture…” We need to get a vast system of long-term measurements established – a system that is planned to be long-term, such that variables within the measuring system are minimised, with the locations of the measurement stations having a constant environment, without trees growing or being cut down around them, nor housing or industrial estates growing around them, nor airports being plonked adjacent to them. If locations or instruments are changed, then a proper record of this needs to be made, with sufficient overlap with the original station or instruments to establish whether readings are significantly different. NONE of this appears to be the case for past records (perhaps because they were not aware of what significance would be placed on readings decimals of a degree different in attempts to destroy western civilisation), and NONE of this appears to be the case for present recordings (perhaps because they are now aware of what significance can be placed on readings decimals of a degree different in their attempts to destroy western civilisation), yet they have the utter audacity to continue to claim to be “scientific”. Then – and ONLY then – can we start to collect and collate some realistic readings, though it will take several decades for patterns to be observed and possible causes to be established. Until then, it would appear that we can only have scare-mongering.
Oh, and finally – there really is no such thing as a “stable climate”…. But – hey! – why shoot for the Moon when you can shoot yourself in both feet, eh?
Look, you muppet, if I can find flaws in the “scientific” arguments you have chosen from the papers you cite – and I assume that you have chosen them as the best examples of summation of the papers you cite – then you really do have to consider both the scientific validity of these papers and your own dumb-ass gullibility.
Radical Rodent
if I can find flaws in the “scientific” arguments you have chosen
You have not. The climate of Venus with its CO2 atmosphere shows a runaway greenhouse effect.
In 2005, the US NOAA established the Climate Reference network of stations with the highest quality triple-redundant instrumentation sited according to the highest standards. You can see a comparison of the reference USCRN with the allegedly 'unreliable' USHCN here.
Station moves, instrumentation changes and so forth are generally well-documented, and even if not there are homogenisation processes to identify and remove non-climatic influences (those much-reviled 'adjustments'). The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project (BEST) came up with an innovative approach which treated each station move or instrumentation change as a new station, removing the need for adjustment - it produced results that confirmed the results from other agencies.
The surface network is massively over-sampled, it has been estimated that the global climate field has 60-90 degrees of freedom - meaning that only 90 stations are required to produce an accurate estimate of the global average, there are in fact several thousand.
And since 1979, the temperature of the troposphere has been estimated using MSU units on satellites, so if the surface thermometer record were seriously compromised then the surface and satellite readings would not correlate well. But they do.
Phil Clarke
Erm… yes, I have.
Venus does NOT show a “runaway greenhouse effect”, the second being the result of studies by someone wanting to prove the “greenhouse effect”, only finding that it was wrong, and a wrong that he had believed for 30 years. Thankfully, he is a scientist, and knows that science needs people to be proven wrong, even it might mean public humiliation.
It matters not if the highest quality, triple-redundancy instrumentation is used, if the readers thereof are not up to the standard in their readings of it; also, why does the “raw” data from these “highest quality, triple-redundancy instrumentation” have to be almost constantly “homogenised”? Is this to ensure that the results are as predicted, or are there inherent flaws in the system? Also, for a scientific culture where accuracy seems to be the key, the word “estimate” and its derivatives is being used rather a lot.
Having shown that you do not know what “adiabatic lapse rate” means and/or do not know or understand the gas laws (a physics basic, I would have thought), I find your continued arguments rather cute.
Question to self: how long should I estimate before the ad hominems on the two links pile in….?
Answer: give it no more than two hours.
Radical Rodent
Ravishing Rabbit a little more kindness if you please for those who stumble in the physics jungle. For why? Because they amuse, but most of all because you can.
AK
re:PNAS piece Phil's linked above
My reading is that it's a long series of caveats about "settled science" spiced with "we don't know"
There is some interesting stuff in the NASA listings - so thank you Phil - it's a while since I looked at those particular NASA/OCO-2 pages.
There is some interesting commentary on the anomalies seen in OCO-2 data - I see regularly elsewhere - especially in the MSM and pop-sci media that the assorted activists and PR departments are several *years* behind the actual observations data.
tomo
We did this to death, that hypothesis requires the violation of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, and it requires the magicking away of albedo:-
You will note that I did not include albedo in my calculation of the effective radiating temperature of the Earth, or of Venus, and there is no room for an albedo effect in my results
It's not ad hominem to regard this as weapons grade balony.
Phil Clarke
wrt to the atmosphere of Venus, it's interesting to note that Mars' atmosphere is 95% CO2. The average surface temperature is around -60 degrees C.
Runaway global warming?
Ooops, it ran the wrong way!
Mike Higton
Wow! 1 hour 12 minutes – I was right!
And if you bothered reading further, you will find that he gives a good, scientific reason for that. Other than, “Because he is wrong!” can you supply good, scientific reasons why albedo should be included? Oh – and, “Because every other scientist says it should!” doesn’t count, either – if it did, we really would not have made any scientific progress, evah!
Minty: what do you mean? I am being kind!
Radical Rodent
Albedo is the fraction of incoming radiation that gets reflected back into space. It is thus a key component of any calculation of radiative imbalance and subsequent influence on temperature. Venus has an albedo of 0.75, to suggest you can just ignore it is nuts.
wrt to the atmosphere of Venus, it's interesting to note that Mars' atmosphere is 95% CO2. The average surface temperature is around -60 degrees C.
And if you were wrong by 500C? What then?
Phil Clarke
The ruthless exploitation of Greta Thunberg by the CO2 Alarm brigade has been sickening to observe. Here is a child victim of the scaremongering, apparently most disturbed by fake news about polar bears, who needs help from responsible adults. She needs calm, and stability, and to be gently led past all the hysteria to a more balanced view of climate variation and our modest contribution to it. Her troubled family needs help too: https://notrickszone.com/2019/10/26/german-portrait-of-the-thunberg-ernman-family-acutely-dysfunctional-an-infinitely-sad-family-history/.
John Shade
Nice cartoon, Stormfront Phil.
But trying to distract with entertainment still leaves the facts behind. The analogy is apt.
You haven't said how it isn't.
Probably because that wouldn't help your campaign to starve black children in the third world by raising living costs.