Carbon Emissions Continue Unabated

We need Steve S, but he got tired of being picked on after the spill last year & bailed

the number of refineries dropped in 1/2 since about 1980
the industry has figured out how to improve the yield the chart below is from

http://www.oiltrendsblog.com/oil-industry/is-there-a-lack-of-refining-capacity-affecting-product-prices-in-the-us/

We need Steve S, but he got tired of being picked on after the spill last year & bailed

Really, I wasn't keeping touch. Was he getting blamed for that?......too bad

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/54896
I think below is probably it

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/569574

Greetings!! From Hawaii!!

Great picture, particularly in as much as it can appear be used to support both sides of the "debate" but has no validity at all for supporting either.

For more than a decade, models of climate change (as caused by increases in greenhouse gases in combination with the 20 other main factors, positive and negative) have predicted more extreme weather and shifts in weather patterns. So the expectation is for more snow in the southern US, more snow in Hawaii, etc. More (and more violent) storms. This appears to have happened, giving slight additional support to the idea that the models are correct. Taken together, over several years, all the storms might begin to show a trend. More or less snow in one location (Hawaii, the south, etc) over one year shows nothing.

People who do not understand the nature of "climate change" (or "climate" in general, and its extremely weak link to any given day's [or week's or weeks'] weather) use the same picture (or others like it) to "show" that climate change is not working out as modeled. Although this argument is meaningless to people who have a basic science education, it still sells. Put the picture on Fox news, play it to millions of people without any scientific literacy at all, and you (possibly) have millions of people thinking that more-than-normal snow in Hawaii shows that the world is getting colder. Such people could think that the picture refutes the climate change model: the world is getting colder not hotter, they think. We know, of course, that it is not: It is warming just slightly faster than at the expected rate.

Both arguments (or implied arguments) are completely invalid, of course. In the southeast US, we've had two really hot summers in a row. Even such (somewhat) longer-term local effects cannot indicate the validity of otherwise of the models. The models talk about a degree over a very long time, not 5 or 10 degree short-term fluctuations.

Of course, no climate scientist (who wants to be taken seriously) points to snow in Hawaii to show that climate is changing in line with the models (even though the models predict changes in weather patterns that can cause such things). The climatologist says: This means absolutely nothing one way of the other.

But that's not good TV.

you took the words right out of my mouth..

... If the O.P. had half the gumption

...People who do not understand the nature of "climate change" (or "climate" in general, and its extremely weak link to any given day's [or week's or weeks'] weather) use the same picture (or others like it) to "show" that climate change is not working out as modeled. Although this argument is meaningless to people who have a basic science education, it still sells. Put the picture on Fox news, play it to millions of people without any scientific literacy at all, and you (possibly) have millions of people thinking that more-than-normal snow in Hawaii shows that the world is getting colder.

Much the same way those supporting AGO (Al Gore and his movie come to mind) distort or misrepresent facts to millions of people without any scientific literacy at all to appeal to their emotions and get them to buy into AGO.

Much the same way those supporting AGO...

I assume you mean the American Guild of Organists.

Wrong thread that would be here

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/69340/Use-of-Acronyms

I considered spelling it out as I describe in the Use-of-Acronyms thread, but thought the acronym had already been used in this thread _{and i was a bit lazy}.

Oops...no I meant AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). I had a dyslexic moment. Typed with my right ring finger (O) instead of my left ring finger (W).

There are somewhat different issues involved, I suppose.

One issue is the use, by someone who "knows no better" (some journalists, for example) of a picture of single (or even several) events, as "proof" for AGW. "It's hot this summer... therefore, man has caused the temperature to go up." "Here's a polar bear swimming -- global warming is caused by man." This has no scientific validity.

The other is the deliberate distortion of facts to make one point or another, when the person or group making the argument "knows better". Then, one must ask, "Who would be funding the distortions, and why?"

About 15 years ago, the debate about global warming had all but fizzled. Few well-informed people argued then (or now) about the effect of CO2 on the earth's long term average temperature. Few then argued that, for example, man is actually reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

Twelve years ago the consensus was strong enough that even the oil industry was caving in. BP issued this statement:

"There's a lot of noise in the data. It is hard to isolate cause and effect. But there is now an effective consensus among the world's leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate, and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature. The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached that point."

Since that time, the "link between greenhouse gases and climate change" has become more certain. (It has been several years since "90% of scientists are 90% certain") Non-scientists and people who are not well-informed, think that science must offer a "proof" before a concept must be taken seriously and before it can be accepted as (for all practical purposes) a given. That is, of course, incorrect.

The oil industry (who, with the coal industry, have the most to gain from discrediting the science) can outspend Al Gore 1000:1, but they have been unable to produce a comparable rebuttal to "An Inconvenient Truth." No one outside the far fringes is saying "Let's create more CO2". (Although many people seem to be saying this with their wallets when they buy SUVs to take their 50 lb kids to school.) Gore, of course, makes appeals to emotion -- he's not an idiot, and if he wants action he must appeal to emotion. But he did not significantly distort the science, and the science he presented as perhaps debatable (by his own admission) at the time has become more certain.

His predictions are dire, but accurately reflect worst-case scenarios supported by many serious scientists at the time. He says something like "If atmospheric CO2 increases at these levels, the following could happen: [yucky stuff]" He does not say that these thing will happen, only that many scientists agree that these things could occur.

When I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" I was not surprised. The ideas had been presented for years, and Gore appeared to be bringing them to a wider audience, and was obviously dramatizing the consequences of doing nothing. I'd read a good deal of literature on global warming, including the IPCC reports and had not found those reports to be fundamentally flawed -- but I'm not a climatologist.

In these issues, it can be helpful, I think, to follow the money. The most powerful industries in the world have much to gain by dissing global warming theories. (This includes energy producers as well as energy consumers: A huge amount of CO2 is produced by smelting aluminum, etc, etc, etc.) Some people without much power may have something to gain by supporting the theories: these would be mainly some of the most underdeveloped countries. But where is the pipeline from Somalia to scientific funding?

You may have a different take on it, and I'd be interested in hearing what specifically you found to have been presented deceptively by Gore.

"The oil industry (who, with the coal industry, have the most to gain from discrediting the science) can outspend Al Gore 1000:1, but they have been unable to produce a comparable rebuttal to "An Inconvenient Truth." "

I personally thought this movie/documentary was a fair rebuttal.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle'

You can down load it from a number of sites online for free and I would give it a fair 80+% accuracy on its overall data and reasoning.

Not perfect but still they at least have their what follows what parts correct and do actually consider rather than dismiss that water vapor and the suns cycles should be included in climate simulations!

Thanks, I'll have a look at the video.

GA from me. It is well and good to express doubt about Mr. Gore's veracity and credentials on the subject, but the detail you supply is invaluable! Thanks for a good post.

It's surprising that you have not already read about these issues.

There is more detail here:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-judge-attacks-nine-errors-in-al-gores-alarmist-climate-change-film.do

http://www.celsias.com/article/the-dirt-behind-the-recent-uk-inconvenient-truth-r/

The nine "errors" have been repeated in many places and many ways. The judge is not a scientist by any stretch, nor is the truck driver who brought the suit.

It is true that Gore dramatizes the situation, and certainly plays fast and loose, as all politicians do. But he is careful to avoid actually lying about the effects of global warming.

Here is an article re his supposed attribution of hurricane Katrina to global warming. If you read the transcript, you see that he does not attribute Katrina to global warming nor does he say that recent increases storms are directly attributable to global warming. He strongly implies that such is the case, however, because he correctly states that warmer water produces more violent storms, (about which there is no controversy) and implies that because the water is warming, there will be more violent storms. This is almost certainly the case. Had he stated that any years' recent increase in violent storms was caused by global warming (as opposed to warmer water, which could be a transient event) then he would have been wrong.

Generally, the media suck. Generally, politicians suck. Neither of those statements has anything to do with the validity of climate change modelling. Gore did a fairly good job of bringing the issue to the awareness of our non-scientific audience. For the scientifically aware, there are the ipcc reports, and the hundreds of papers that have been published supporting the consensus view that man-made CO2 is causing the world to warm more dramatically than it would otherwise. There are a many papers that have been published that challenge modelling assumptions, but over the decades, the models have gotten better because of these papers and the consensus has strengthened.

Good post. I agree with much of what you wrote.
Gore is a pretty skilled politician, in the sense that he stretches the truth for effect. I've inserted a couple notes in your text quoted below.

• According to the An Inconvenient Truth, the number of Category 4 and Category 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in 2005 (not sure if that's the correct year) with the implication being it's due to AGW. But his concerns seem to be misplaced when looking at more recent data as 2007, 2008 and 2009 had extremely low number of Cat 4 and 5 storms. He did not say that the more violent storms of 2005 were caused by global warming. He said that violent storms are caused by warm water, and allowed the audience to connect the dots... that global warming could cause more violent storms in the future, with the recent storms being illustrative of the sort of thing that could happen.
• While he doesn't explicitly state it, he implies sea level rises of 6 m would be in the near future while the IPCC has stated that such rises have occurred in the past over several millennia. The actual rate of rise is greater than expected. But I think you are right, that he overstated the case, and made the rate seem faster than it really will be. The projections are that 6m will not require several millennia, however. The expectation is that such a rise will occur over 2-3 centuries.
• Claims the ocean thermohaline circulation would be shut down. As far as I know he never claimed this. I don't have a full transcript in front of me, but vaguely remember that he said the Gulf Stream could be affected dramatically, not shut down. Do you have the transcript?
• says that in each of the last four interglacial warm periods it was changes in carbon dioxide concentration that caused changes in temperature. Changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2 concentration by between 800 and 2800 years, as scientific papers including the paper on which Gore's film had relied had made clear. Yes. He is wrong here, sort of. He points out that CO2 is self-reinforcing (a positive feedback loop). Warming creates more CO2, which creates more warming.
• says "global warming" dried up Lake Chad in Africa. It did not. Over-extraction of water and changing agricultural patterns dried the lake, which was also dry in 8500BC, 5500BC, 1000BC and 100BC I am not sure that he actually said that, although he strongly implied it. Global warming is likely a strong influencer in the rate of the most recent drying. The overuse does not adequately explain the rate. I think I have seen a figure of 30% causation by warming.

Unfortunately, there are few politicians who really understand the science, and few scientists who can get their point across in a compelling fashion.

My entire point is that Gore is being deceptive. It doesn't mean he was outright lying....but giving people the wrong impression....marketing his position taken to an extreme. He is clever enough to speak carefully so he can claim he wasn't lying.

It doesn't matter whether he is a scientist or not, if he jumps up and takes the reigns of the global warming campaign, then he is responsible for what he says.

When you deliberately state one thing when you know that it is not true or you intentionally leave out information for the purpose of deceiving others, that is lying.

If you say something that you believe to be true, but it is in fact false, that is ignorance.

The problem is that it is difficult getting inside that person's head to tell if they are really spouting lies or ignorance.

And in some cases you really would not want to get into that person's head because it is a little like putting your hands into bowl filled with dog pooh.

When you deliberately state one thing when you know that it is not true or you intentionally leave out information for the purpose of deceiving others, that is lying.
"There are lies, damn lies, and politics" ... to misquote someone.

The Al Gore movie is like Fox news

Infotainment

a mix of fact & opinion

It's a movie after all

Presenting some worst case scenarios

If you are referring to the Fox News Network, yes it is a mix of news programs and opinion programs. I find it interesting how those who don't like Fox make it sound like Fox is doing something different than CNN (advertised as a news channel, but has a number of opinion shows) and MSNBC (also advertised as a news channel, but has a number of opinion shows).

As a matter of fact, Fox opinion shows generally state they are opinion and not news. I also find that the news programs on Fox have far less opinion in them than the news programs on CNN and MSNBC.

Fox is the innovator for opinion that appears to be news

I like to flip back & forth between MSNBC & Fox

it's entertaining to watch both extremes try to spin events

ever since the news was deregulated, it's become less factual & more entertainment based

all of the broadcast media is owned by big mega corps

there is a bias that favors their own interests

I also find that the news programs on Fox have far less opinion in them than the news programs on CNN and MSNBC.
Media studies support the opposite take on it.

Not surprising.

Given that the studies cited are almost always done by organizations with a "dog in the fight" and those organizations would suffer from a loss of street-cred if the average consumer were to see them as biased, I'd be astounded if the studies DIDN'T refute the "bias" label.

It doesn't matter whether he is a scientist or not, if he jumps up and takes the reigns of the global warming campaign, then he is responsible for what he says.

I agree. Of course the same distortions occur on both sides of the issue. For example, your points, as presented, are generally deceptive.

In the first, you imply that 2007, 2008 and 2009 hurricane seasons were comparatively benign, but that is untrue. 2007 was one of only four on record for the Atlantic with more than one Category 5 storm. 2008 was the 3rd most costly on record, behind only the 2004 and 2005 seasons. 2009 was below average in the Atlantic and above average in the Pacific. 2010 was well above average, with the most named storms since 2005.

In the second, you imply that the water rise will take millennia because it has in the past. There is little indication in the science that this is going to be the case. 6m is likely to occur in a few centuries.

In the third you imply that he said that the thermohaline circulation would shutdown. I can't say one way or the other, with any certainty, but I remember it having been presented as a possibility.

In the fourth, you imply that what he said is incorrect, which, according to the science, is not. CO2 does tend to increase the rate of warming, so that the later stages (the majority) of each warming cycle are forced by CO2 levels. That CO2 has lagged warming in the early stages in the past is a separate issue.

In the fifth, you state that he says that global warming dried up lake Chad, and state that it did not. The truth appears to be somewhere in between.

Perhaps Gore should only get a 90 as a grade on his movie. 10% of what he says is questionable. However, at least 80% of what you wrote in your post (#116) is questionable*.

* and 80% of what I write is questionable too. Such is the nature of politics. I have not seen a discussion of climate change issues on cr4 that has been apolitical. You are a good sparring partner, and I value your insights.

You have to keep in mind, there is a good amount of people that believe Al Gore is a good man. And they will defend him fanatically.

The debate seems to continue unabated.

And if the true believers can be believed, the debate continues unDEbated, too!

Or it might if they had their way! You know, "No SERIOUS Scientist is in any doubt"...

Or, "The evidence is overwhelming ..."

I'm underwhelmed. Seriously!!

Here is another example of why the debate rages on:

More Fudged Research

This is exactly the type of "scientific work" that gives the whole subject no credibility.

The logic here is why manipulate the data if the argument/claims of global warming are so irrefutable?

So its back to Debate? so its no longer a censuses?

Good work!

"FOX ...plays this "story" up, trying to make news of it.

Its not news, ... it's entertainment."

CNN, MSNBC, et al, do NOT?

What rock do YOU hide under? Or, more to the point, what rock do you think WE hide under?

Yes, I redacted parts. Those parts that referred to arch-conservative. While THIS case might have been a fit, I'd hurt myself laughing if anyone tried to apply that title to something by CNN, or MSNBC. Or a slew of newspapers. But the parts I quoted fit both sides.

CNN is accused of having both a liberal bias and a conservative bias. Therefore they are probably pretty balanced.

MSNBC, is generally accused of being "liberal", with good cause.

Fox is generally accused of being "conservative", with good cause.

Fox is different than the others, however, in its presenting of editorial content as news. The article linked above is "News" only to Fox. To any network with a science editor, this would not pass for news. But in addition, the Fox article is written as an editorial -- not to inform but to persuade. Thus, the most persuasive position in the article (the conclusion) presents just one side. As if that weren't journalistically sleazy enough, the way in which that side is presented is insulting and confrontational.

Fox hopes that the reader will come away with the message that climate scientists are nutty to worry about real sea levels, that they are exaggerating sea level rise, that Al Gore is duplicitous or not like ordinary people because he lives in an expensive house, and that Al Gore is lying about sea level rise because he lives on the coast, and therefore must know that the sea level will not rise.

A real news organization would not present this as news.

This blurring between news and editorial, in combination with the fact that Fox viewers are less-educated than viewers of the other networks, leaves Fox viewers poorly-informed.

Many studies have placed Fox news viewers at the bottom of the heap in terms of knowledge of current events: NBC/Wall Street Journal found Fox News viewers overwhelmingly misinformed about health care reform proposals. A 2008 Pew study ranked Fox News last in the number of "high knowledge" viewers and a 2007 Pew poll ranked Fox viewers as the least knowledgeable about national and international affairs. A 2003 study from the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that Fox News viewers were most likely to believe that Saddam Hussein had links to Al-Qaeda, that coalition troops found WMD in Iraq, and that world public opinion supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

A 2010 study by the WPO at the University of Maryland found that those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:

• most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
• most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
• the economy is getting worse (26 points)
• most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
• the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
• their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
• the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
• when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
• and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

This study is interesting to read. It shows that frequent Fox news watching actually makes people less knowledgeable, whereas frequent users of other news sources are generally more knowledgeable. It is as if Fox news is propaganda (deliberate misinformation), and other news outlets provide truthful information.

So while you seem to be saying that the networks are all alike, I think they are different.

Given that an informed populace is a requirement for democracy to work, it seems that perhaps Fox is unpatriotic and anti-American.

Did you actually read the linked item, and follow up the included link about Glacial Isostatic Adjustment ?

[Edit: Woops - K_Fry got in there before me, and did a much better job.]