Hardly a week goes by that we aren’t reporting a story on concerns about global warming.
But, a growing number of people in the scientific community are coming forward to express doubts about the prevailing scientific opinions concerning global warming.
Recently, 16 respected scientists signed a letter, published in the Wall Street Journal, which indicated there is no need to panic about global warming, arguing there’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize‘ the world’s economy.
A few days after the letter appeared, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) released a study which finds human activity contributes to global warming.
The NASA study, “Earth’s energy imbalance and implications,” was recently published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
The study was led by James Hansen, director of GISS, a respected scientist who is well known for his work in climatology.
Data collected by Argo floats, such as this one, helped Dr. Hansen’s team improve the calculation of Earth’s energy imbalance. (Photo: Argo Project Office)
Many say it was his testimony on climate change before the US Congress in 1988, that was responsible for increasing awareness of global warming and climate change, bringing the issue to the forefront of the public’s consciousness.
At the heart of the new paper is an emphasis that greenhouse gases generated by human activity – and not changes in solar activity – are the primary force driving global warming.
The study calculated the balance of energy the Earth takes in from the sun, the amount of energy that’s absorbed by the surface of the Earth and compared it to what energy is returned from the Earth to space in the form of heat.
The researchers found, despite unusually low solar activity between 2005 and 2010, Earth continued to absorb more energy than it returned to space.
Dr. Gavin Schmidt, a colleague of Dr. Hansen’s at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, tells us that basically, we’re putting greenhouse gases – which are primarily water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone – into the atmosphere, making it harder for energy coming in from the sun and processed by Earth’s climate systems to make it back out to space.
Schmidt says that their research showed that temperatures are changing because of increases in greenhouse gases. The increased emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere keep more energy trapped near the ground than what would be considered normal.
Dr. Gavin Schmidt (Photo: NASA/GISS)
That imbalance – more energy coming into Earth than is leaving it – is part of the whole global warming story.
As far as other evidence supporting the theory of human-caused global warming, Dr. Schmidt points to conditions such as the temperature changes that scientists are recording around the world; the heat content changes in the ocean; stratospheric cooling, which he says is a “very clear signature of carbon dioxide;” as well as the spectral radiation scientists are measuring from satellites.
Dr. Schmidt says those along, with other signs to look for, such as sea ice, the phenology of plants and glacial melting, prove that the actual fact of warming is incontrovertible, that the planet has clearly warmed over the last 100 years and that the warming has increased over the last few decades.
Dr. William Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton University is one of the 16 scientists who signed the Wall Street Journal letter, and he raises doubts about what has almost become conventional wisdom on global warming.
Dr. Happer also testified before Congress, in 2009, saying, “I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind.”
Dr. Happer says the Wall Street Journal letter is the result of a scientific examination of global warming and increasing CO2, which found “there’s more smoke than fire there,” and demonstrates that not all scientists think there’s a drastic problem that must be immediately addressed.
Dr. William Happer (Photo: Denise Applewhite, Princeton University Office of Communication)
The Wall Street Journal letter was directed toward “candidates running for public office in any contemporary democracy who may have to consider what, if anything, to do about ‘global warming.’”
The signatories of the letter said that they were speaking for “many scientists and engineers, who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate,” and that their basic message to the candidates was that, “there is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.”
Many people today believe that anthropogenic global warming is a cold, hard and irrefutable fact. But, scientists such as Dr. Happer say this might not necessarily be true.
Dr. Happer describes climate change as happening all the time, that it’s been changing and that it has clearly warmed up over the last 200 years. But Dr. Happer insists the current warming trend started from a very cold period at the end of what has been called the “little ice age”.
“Most of the warming you hear about and most of the glacier melting was over by 1900,” says Dr. Happer.
Dr. Happer finds it hard to believe the early phase of the warming, which he says is the biggest part, was all independent of CO2 because its levels hadn’t increased much before 1900.
In the Wall Street Journal letter, Dr. Happer points out there has been no warming for over 10 years. He invites anyone to “look it up on the Internet.”
CO2 (Image: David Gaya/Generated with KPovModeler via Wikimedia)
“Just look at the graph of temperature versus time since the year 2000 and there has been no warming,” says Dr. Happer.
According to Dr. Happer, the data implies that the models, which predicted quite a lot of warming, have greatly exaggerated the effect of C02.
Dr. Happer thinks that most, if not all, of those who signed the letter believe CO2 will cause some warming but that the amount has been enormously exaggerated.
You, of course, can find volumes and volumes of information and data that support both sides of this issue on the Internet or in your local library.
But, by sharing what Drs. Happer and Schmidt shared with us on this issue, we wanted to give you just a little “food for thought” so that you draw your own conclusions regarding global warming and whether or not it’s been primarily caused by human activity.
Both Dr. Gavin Schmidt, from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and, Dr. William Happer of Princeton University join us this weekend on the radio edition of “Science World.”
They’ll each give us their insight into the global warming/climate change issue. Tune in (see right column for scheduled times).
Other stories we cover on the “Science World” radio program this week include:
- Mating call of prehistoric katydid chirps again
- Pakistani fisherman reel in a big one – a 12-meter whale-shark
- President Obama holds science fair at White House
- Scientists: plants can talk to each other
- Russian scientists say they’ve drilled through thick Antarctic ice to reach freshwater lake
- Researchers reverse Alzheimer’s disease in mice
- Farming may have helped rainforests of Central Africa disappear
VOA claims to be “a trusted source of news and information”, but shows it is anything but with this article.
It presents the viewpoints of Happer and Schmidt as somehow equivalent in terms of scientific authority on climate change, when they are not.
It claims that “a growing number of people in the scientific community are coming forward to express doubt”, when that is not really true in any meaningful way… it is mostly the same science deniers over and over again. Certainly there has been no weakening of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.
It presents Happer’s arguments at face value, without reporting how they have been shown to be false over and over again, conclusively.
It mentions the WSJ article without pointing out that the signers are either unqualified, or compromised, or both. It neglects to mention the rebuttal by real climate scientists that was published in the WSJ the following week, or that the WSJ had previously rejected an editorial signed by hundreds of leading climate scientists, that was subsequently published in Science.
It leaves it to the readers to draw their own conclusions, without providing the information they would need.
Distorting the truth to set up a ‘debate’ might boost ratings for the radio show, but it is irresponsible journalism. Context is everything.
GET over it.
The subject is covered by dozens of sources. They can NOT agree.
The so called independant Scientific Organizations (IGU, AAAS etc) say they have a solution (greenhouse gases cause warming by trapping photons)but it is simple to prove that it does not happen. IF it did happen then just how come all that trapped heat is not evident? Why haven’t we warmed up more since we have been trapping energy photons for billions of years? Why can you still find GHGs at ambient temperature? IF they trap the energy
If they trap heat why do they cool down every night? Don’t they then release the heat by transporting it out?- ie they do NOT trap it. They just transport it out, just like convection and conduction. The Greenhouse Effect is a simple Heat transport mechanism.
As for Hansen’s non- equilibrium. Is he saying that the Stephan-Boltzmann Law does not impose equilibrium at the speed of light by radiating out more or less heat energy depending upon the temperature to the fourth power? IN VIOLATION of the conventional Laws of Physics?
How about the CO2 causes warming belief. IF the sun, the so called sole source of warming energy (per IPCC) has not changed since the 1960s (see Schmidt’s blog) then where exactly do we get the extra energy that this extra CO2 uses to warm the earth? Do the GHGs make it? DO they not believe in Conservation of Energy and that Man cannot create or destroy energy? How about the Earth’s decay heat? doesn’t it exist? How about the tidal energy that the variation in the Moon’s orbit induces into the ocean. Since it doesn’t come from the sole source sun, does it not exist?
I’m sorry, these so called experts are total idiots- they are giving science a bad name by ignoring obvious sources of energy because it does not agree with their favorite theory.
We have 4 sources of Earthly temperature since ~1850 which ALL pretty much agree that the Earth has gone thru 60 year warming and cooling cycles, including the 1970thru 1998 warming and the not quite cooling from 1998 thru now due to bottom in 2028 or so. Just wait to see what it does until 2028, the end of the current 30 year cooling cycle., which follows each 30 year warming cycle .
I will predict that the hansen schmidt CO2 causes warming contention will be thrown out as the temperature cools for the next few years thru 2028 just like it did in the 1530s! and from 1880 to 1910, and from 1940 to 1970 etc etc
In fact I will go put on a limb and predict that the temperature will cool every night in spite of the claim that the steadily increasing number of GHGs and CO2 will trap all the energy they absorb. Are you all so stupid that you do not believe we at the surface cool down every night?
How about Trenberth’s energy balance diagram? Since heat rises from hotter to colder places (or so I was taught) just how can he have heat radiated from cold upper atmosphere CO2 DOWN to the obviously hotter surface? It just AIN”T POSSIBLE unless you throw out 400 years of science.
What I do not understand is how all you so called scientists can adopt such an obviously disprovable theory.. OR am I supposed to ignore the last 400+ years of science currently taught in schools?
As a scirntist/engineer with a masters degree I am totally disgusted with this subject. All I see is more so called scientists claiming that the Earth is undergoing (irreversible)global warming or climate change. Excuse me but you are all total idiots. I can prove it is cyclical and natural using 19th century science. I can prove that the temperature goes down experimentally every single DAMN night imspite of the imcreasing man caused CO2 in the air. Why can’t you? Are you that incompetent?
I agree with you, John Dodds . To maintain that a trace gas, CO2, that makes up only 36% of the earth’s atmosphere and is 1 and 1/2 times heavier than air is the driver of something as complex as the earth’s climate is, quite frankly, insane.
This, with out any doubt, proves that CO2 is heavier than the rest of the atmosphere and I think every one knows that that has ever used a CO2 fire extinguisher:
Carbon dioxide is one and one half times heavier than “air”. This point was sadly proven on Aug, 21, 1986 when Lake Nyor in Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO2 that spilled over the lip of the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles of the lake. “Carbon dioxide, being about 1.5 times as dense as air, caused the cloud to “hug” the ground and descend down the valleys where various villages were located. The mass was about 50 metres (164 ft) thick and it travelled downward at a rate of 20–50 kilometres (12–31 mi) per hour. For roughly 23 kilometres (14 mi) the cloud remained condensed and dangerous, suffocating many of the people sleeping in Nyos,Kam,Cha,andSubum.
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…
This coincides with the above fact about CO2:
ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2
http://greenparty.ca/blogs/169/2009-01-03/ppm-co2-altitude-and-mass-co2-atmosphere-8520-metres-beyond-which-there-practic
There are some obsessed with the supposed increase of 280 ppm to 392ppm of CO2 and I hope that this information will help them to sleep better at nights.
This, I hope, will put this into some kind of a perspective that makes one understand just how insignificant this increase is.
A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large
kitchen sink.
A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There
are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons
per gallon.
Some other things that are one part per million are…
One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
One inch in 16 miles
About one minute in two years
One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from
Cleveland to San Francisco.
One penny in $10,000.
I know that they understand that these 112 additional ppm are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn’t it be a task to be told to sort out the 392 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000.
At 392 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
The last point is, when was anyone able to trap anything with a gas?
The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) must have foreseen Global Warmism. He said: “The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” I’m not sure that “deniers” are in the minority, but you get my point.
To see why a trace gas like CO2 can drive the climate, just look at the science.
1. If there was no CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth’s temperature would be about 60 degrees colder than it is (not sure 60 is right, but that’s about the right amount)
2. Doubling CO2 to 560 pmm (from the amount in 1750) will raise the Earth’s temp about 1.5 degrees all by itself
3. As the atmosphere warms, it holds more water vapor, and that adds significantly to the temp.
4. The final result is a about at 3 degree warming for a doubled CO2 in the short run.
This is not speculation. I know it’s hard to believe that a trace gas can have such an influence, but the effect can be shown with simple physics and math
Bruce Parker; Just where do you come up with such flawed information as this: ” If there was no CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth’s temperature would be about 60 degrees colder than it is (not sure 60 is right, but that’s about the right amount)” Bruce, in fact from what I have read that you have posted and that was a waste of both of our precious moments of life on earth, you writing it and my reading it, you have been right about virtually nothing.
You should know that water vapor in the atmosphere in what ever form it takes, vapor, clouds or what ever comprises what constitutes 95% the earth’s green hose effect. I want to apply some simple logic to this. I do not know if you have had experience with cold and winters. The coldest nights of the winter always occur when the skies are clear, no cloud cover. Deserts can be 120 degrees F in the day time and get down to freezing at night, again no cloud cover to shade the earth or to hold any heat at night. You seem to want to imagine that the green house effect comes from what Al Gore wants fools to believe and that is a continues pane of glass like “something or the other(CO2?)” making a trap for heat. Please tell me just what you can trap with a trace gas, CO2, that makes up only .036% of the atmosphere. Add a cloud cover and there is a retention of heat, as I have demonstrated to you.
“Long-anticipated results of the CLOUD experiment at CERN in Geneva appear in tomorrow’s issue of the journal Nature (25 August). The Director General of CERN stirred controversy last month, by saying that the CLOUD team’s report should be politically correct about climate change (see my 17 July post below). The implication was that they should on no account endorse the Danish heresy – Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that most of the global warming of the 20th Century can be explained by the reduction in cosmic rays due to livelier solar activity, resulting in less low cloud cover and warmer surface temperatures.”
http://ktwop.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/its-the-sun-stupid-svensmark-vindicated-cern-shows-cosmic-rays-do-influence-cloud-formation/
Could you tell me what is the connection with the 400+years of science? Meteorology is not a science now! They work with predictions and almost none until now were correct. All the ‘big computers prediction’ for more then 3 months were false! Where is the science here?
This story presents a false equivalence between sixteen politically motivated scientists, mostly energy physicists, publishing in a right-of-center newspaper on one side, and the vast majority – 97% in one survey – of climate scientists, who publish in the actual peer-reviewed scientific journals on the other. Also sounding the alarm on climate change are the National Academies of every advanced nation, including our own, and the laborious and incredibly detailed and carefully edited IPCC process. Presenting this as a controversy is like presenting the debate about whether men landed on the moon as a controversy. The so-called debate continues only because of oil-industry funded think tanks with deep pockets.
Anna do you mean the $26 million that Chesapeake Gas paid the Sierra Club? “The Sierra Club quietly accepted $26 million in donations from gas industry interests from 2007 to 2010 — years when the group’s national leaders were talking up gas as a cleaner, greener “bridge fuel” alternative to coal…
New York state anti-fracking activist Walter Hang, president of the environmental data service Toxics Targeting, called the disclosure “incredibly embarrassing. … It basically looks like they’re shilling for the No. 2 natural gas producer in America.” dubya dubya dubya.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72581.html
Oh and just so you know, one of the signers of the Wall Street Journal piece (Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut) actually really really really DID WALK ON THE MOON!!!!!!!!!
One minor detail: According to HadCRUt3 (the climategate guyz), it has cooled over the last 10 years (going by linear trend). And the ever-changing HadCRU and GHCN calculations have been called into serious question.
Much of perceived warming is spurious: an artifact of poor station siting.
Going by the raw data of well sited stations, warming is real — but exaggerated by about a factor of two over the last 30 years. The “adjustment” procedure does not adjust the trends of poorly sited stations DOWNward to match the well sited stations. Instead, it adjusts the well sited station trends UPward to match the poorly sited station trends. (Stations rated according to Leroy, et al., 2010, raw and adjusted trend data from Fall, et al., 2011.)
Unfortunately we can only judge station microsite quality back to around 1980, as site information is either irredeemably crude or simply unavailable.
The Earth HAS NOT cooled over the last 10 years.
1. You need to look at both ATMOSPHERE and OCEAN temperatures /heat content
2. The TOTAL heat content of the earth has been increasing steadily for a long time,
(see a graph at http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/10/10/204783/skeptical-science-global-warming-not-cooling-is-still-happening-ocean-heat-content/)
3. The atmosphere contains only about 10% of the heat being absorbed by the earth
4. The high temp im 1998 was caused by strong el nino event, which dumped extra heat ino the atmosphere
5. When looking at climate, you need to look at trends, which occur over decades, and not such short periods as 10 years. The Earth has been warming at roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade since 1975
6. Poor station siting is NOT a problem. A group of “deniers” tried to prove this and ended up confirming global warming (see http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404)
Where to begin?
— No skeptic I have ever met claims there has been no warming since 1900. Or since 1980. Every skeptic I know is part of the “97%”.
— Surface temperatures have cooled, even after “adjustment”. (Using raw data, the cooling is considerably greater.)
— The Argo buoys (the only reliable source) show no ocean warming since they came online in 2005. Three out of four recent studies indicate less heat content.
— The term “deniers” is quite offensive. It is a very deliberate reference to holocaust deniers. Kindly do not employ that term. And neither of the top co-authors of the Berkeley team (Muller or Curry) is a skeptic. But that gets into personalities and is beside the point. What matters is the science.
Poor siting does matter. Tmean trends are not different using the highly flawed Leroy (1999) rating system, which accounts only for distance to the nearest heat source or sink but makes no account whatever of heat sink area within given radius. We used to have a joke: “All Class 4 stations are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
Fortunately, Leroy (2010) readdresses this issue and takes area of heat source/sink into account. Using this method, Class 1 & 2 stations warm significantly slower than Class 3 – 5. Class 1\2 raw data shows half the warming of the adjusted figure for Class 1 – 5 from 1979 – 2008. The sample set is quite robust: over 1000 USHCN stations (no with no cherrypicking whatever).
— If you want to consider trends, consider that HadCRUt3 shows a near-equal amount of warming from 1901 to 1950 as from 1951 – 2000. And the positive PDO periods during each of those times shows the same slope as well. Yet CO2 emissions did not start to take off until 1950. Therefore, CO2 is not likely to be the main driver, although I do believe it has a limited effect on the climate.
— Going forward, the feedback debate is what is going to decide the issue. Raw forcing of CO2 is no emergency. It only matters if that effect is multiplied via the mechanisms put forth by the IPCC. But feedback is highly disputed aty this time and does not appear to apply to the 20th century.
— I agree that the globe has warmed. The question is how much. Instrumentation and methods therefore become very important. NOAA and the Met office need to publish their full and complete adjustment procedure will full code and manuals so it can be reproduced independently. (The homogenization code alone doesn’t cut it.)
I’m afraid that this discussion of temperature trends is poorly informed.
If one considers global average annual temperature measurements from the last 10 years, you have just 10 data points. You can plot these and use simple linear regression (although this is not actually how you should analyse annual temperatures) to obtain a trend – it is negative (ie cooling). But the trend is not statistically significant ie you cannot be sure that there is no cooling trend. If you take the previous 10 data points (ie annual temperatures from 2001 to 2010) and plot these, you obtain a very slight cooling trend, but again it is not statistically significant. If you plot the previous 10 data points (ie annual temperatures from 2000 to 2009), you find a positive warming trend, but again it is not statistically significant.
Indeed if you plot each of the 10-consecutive-year periods since 1970, you find that only five of these 33 periods shows a statistically significant trend. Does this mean there has not really been any warming since 1970? Of course not. Plot the entire set of 42 data points and you find a very strong and unambiguous warming trend that is statistically significant. More explanation can be found here: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2012/February/anthropogenic-global-warming-1997.aspx
The plain fact is that trying to detect and measure underlying trends in very small and noisy sets of just 10 temperature data points is very poor statistical practice. It is laughable that Dr Happer should be relying on such flawed reasoning, and it is astounding that Science World on Voice of America should actually be promoting such unscientific nonsense.
What matters is the science – you are correct.
Think of climate change science as 100-leg stool in soft sand. If a few legs need to be made longer or shorter or to be removed (as is what happens in science), the stool still stands as firm as ever. So some “sightings” might be poor or a few buoys might not show warming- so what? The science is still undeniable – if we continue burning fossil fuels at the current accelerating rate the Earth WILL warm to such an extent that the Earth’s climate WILL be severely impacted. The EXACT dates cannot be determined with any accuracy, but there is a very high probability that by the end of the century things could be really bad. The major factors are climate sensitivity (which is known reasonable well for decadal response times (about 3 degrees C), the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere now, the amount being added each year, and the yearly increase in these amounts. With those factors, you can compute an expected “equilibrium” temperature. Climate models can then give an idea of the ways the climate can change, which will be due to more heat in the atmosphere, rising sea temperatures, more moisture in the atmosphere, etc. Scientists cannot say for certain what will happen, but can say that there is a very high probability that we need to keep the temperature rise under 2 degrees C. And according to the IPCC, even the widely accepted target of a rise in temperatures of two degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels would cause major disruption. Can you show me any SCIENCE which contradicts any this?
I don’t think there is any SIGNIFICANT disagreement on how much the Earth has warmed (.8 degrees since 1750) and .1-.2 degrees C per decade since 1975. The Earth is still in an “energy imbalance” mode, where more energy is being received from the Sun than is being radiated into space – so the Earth will continue to warm.
The problem is that 85 of the 100 legs are off-kilter.
Only 15% of climate stations are Class 1 or 2 (i.e., acceptable according to NOAA’s own standards). The rest are Class 3 or worse.
Obviously this affects the actual readings. This would not matter much, except that it also affects the trends in a very big way. The adjustment procedures of GISS, NOAA, and HadCRU make the matter worse rather than better by writing off the correctly sited stations as “outliers” and doubling their trends to match those of the poorly sited stations.
What I am saying is that, according to the Leroy (2010) rating system, the temperature change over the last 30 years is exaggerated by roughly a factor of two. This confirms a number of peer reviewed papers on the subject.
As for a warming of 2C, I consider it quite unlikely. Even stipulating that the earth has warmed at the “adjusted” amount of 0.7C since 1900 (and I suspect it’s closer to +0.4C), we have a CO2 increase of 40% plus non-CO2 anthropogenic causes, plus natural recovery from the LIA. That leaves no room for positive feedbacks whatever.
If we continue to increase CO2 use at our current rate, we will not even increase current levels by 50% by the end of the century. Even if CO2 doubled (very unlikely given all factors, including technological advance), we’d only be 1C warmer without the feedback, for which there is zip empirical evidence.
Bottom line: no positive feedbacks — or countering negative feedbacks — and there is no emergency whatever.
Global Temperatures Have Dropped 0.5C In The Last 12 Months
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
150 years of global warming (0.7C) going down the drain.
Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.
Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.
It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).
For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
I seriously doubt that you ever looked into what Richard Muller had said about your hero Mann and other dishonest members of your group. You can get up to speed on it here:
Climategate ‘hide the decline’ explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
One of Al Gore’s (AGWers) main claim is that as CO2 rises temperatures rise, that is in fact what they hockey stick disingenuously tries to show, however while this sounds great and graph is pretty, historically and scientifically it lacks credibility.
Let’s look at CO2 and temperature historically:
………………Mean Surface Temp C………Mean CO2 ppm
Carboniferous……….14…………………………800
Permian……………… 16…………………………900
Triassic……………… 17……………………….1750
Jurassic……………… 16.5…………………….1950
Cretaceous…………. 18……………………….1700
Paleogene……………18…………………………500
Carboniferous………14………………………… 800……………..14…………………………280
The first thing one notices is how little correlation CO2 has with temperature –
………………Mean Surface Temp C………Mean CO2 ppm
Carboniferous……………14…………………………800
Neogene…………………. 14…………………………280
………………Mean Surface Temp C………Mean CO2 ppm
Cretaceous……………. 18………………………1700
Paleogene………………18………………………. 500
………………Mean Surface Temp C………Mean CO2 ppm
Permian…………………16……………………….. 900
Jurassic…………………16.5…………………….1950
Could you also tell me from where the money for the suites of “green” scientist? because they cost a lot of money too, of course. Only the access to a Cray computer which can make the previsions on a large scale and with so many factors included cost hundred of thousand of dollars an hour.
Or maybe they used a private PC?!?!
Anna: Do you actually believe this? “The so-called debate continues only because of oil-industry funded think tanks with deep pockets.” Why would the oil industry have to fund anything regarding this when, at present, there is nothing to take the place of oil for transportation and be reminded that oil only provides .8% of the US’s electrical needs. The oil companies do fund alternate energy research and be reminded that how Shell and BP founded CRU in 1972. Also be reminded of how many different new ways the oil companies employ to recover more oil from old fields. This information may be disagreeable to you but it is true.
It is amazing that such a misleading, ill-informed and poorly-researched article could appear on the VOA website!
The opinion article published by the ‘Wall Street Journal’ was an attempt to influence Republican Presidential hopefuls. It was a political intervention. Very few of the authors have actually carried out or published any research on climate change, and their views are at odds with the great weight of scientific evidence.
By contrast, the views expressed by Dr Schmidt are consistent with the conclusions drawn by the overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists, as well as the United States National Academy of Sciences, representing America’s best scientists, every other national science academy in the world, and indeed every other major scientific organisation in the world.
Here is what the most recent report by the US National Academy of Sciences concluded:
“Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems. Emissions continue to increase, which will result in further change and greater risks. Responding to these risks is a crucial challenge facing the United States and the world today and for many decades to come.”
http://dels-old.nas.edu/basc/climate-change/ACC_Final_Report_Brief04.pdf
Remember, the National Academy of Sciences represents America’s best scientists, who have scrutinised the work of climate researchers and the evidence they have documented. The reputation and funding of the National Academy does not depend on man-made climate change!
Dr Happer attempts to justify his views by claiming that man-made global warming has “stopped”. He does not cite any scientific papers to support this contention because there are none. His argument is entirely misleading and based on very poor science and statistics. The warming of the Earth over the past 40 years is clear and unambiguous. The data shows that the Earth has been warming over the past 15 years as well, but the trend is not statistically significant. But if you select any 15-consecutive-year period over the last 40 years you will find that many do not define a statistically significant warming trend. That is because if you use too few data points you are unable to distinguish a signal from the background noise. Dr Happer should know that. It is all explained here: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2012/February/anthropogenic-global-warming-1997.aspx
So please VOA, do make more effort next time to give your listeners and readers a less misleading and inaccurate impression of the state of knowledge about climate change.
The “debate” is only in the sphere of public policy and not the scientific world. The “skeptics” are largely funded by the fossil fuel industry or the few “scientists” that may have a different opinion and are largely brought to the forefront by the industry to maintain a image of “doubt”.
All this is to keep the status quo. The tobacco industry did the same tactic in regard to cancer and smoking, the oil/coal companies are following their script.
When NASA puts out a study supporting man-made global climate change they should include a disclaimer showing how much money they are getting to promote that belief.
If NASA was to report a study with results to the contrary, they would lose hundreds of $millions in funding.
The Wall Street Journal (with ties to Rupert Murdock) often publishes articles with questionable validity about global climate change. Veteran award-winning NASA climatologist and “Storms of My Grandchildren” author James E. Hansen, PhD gets my vote for both defining climate problems and proposing solutions!
Rupert Murdock is a member of the Church of AGW look it up fool.
No name calling, please.
Rupert Murdoch and his Newscorp may be practicing “green” behavior, but his Fox “News” host-models consistently advocate on the side of the fossil fuel industry. The only one who may be an exception is Bill O’Reilly.
Anyone here who watches Fox “News” can back me up on this.
Thanks for a well written and balanced update on the climate debate. There is indeed a debate. Arguments from authority by climate alarmists, as most of the critical comments here are, no longer cut it. The debate is not that there has been no warming, not about the Tyndall effect, not that there has been no human contribution to climate; rather, it is about the amount of warming caused by human contributions, whether warming is even harmful and if so, how harmful, and the harmful economic effects on both developed and under-developed societies of draconian “solutions” to the climate “problem. Commenters here ascribe political motives and avarice to doubters yet ignore political motives of climate alarmists and research funding motives of climate scientists. Alarmist climate scientists dismiss out-of-hand the research and hypothesis of Svensmark and others who postulate a cosmic ray amplifying effect for solar energy yet accept with out question an unproven positive feedback water vapor amplification on CO2 effects, upon which climate modelers are wholly dependent for their alarmist predictions.
BTW, one sentence in the article does not seem to follow the gist of Happers argument. I think that
“Dr. Happer finds it hard to believe the early phase of the warming, which he says is the biggest part, was all independent of CO2 because its levels hadn’t increased much before 1900.” should read
“…was all dependent on CO2…”
not “was all independent of CO2”
I think his argument is that 19th and early 20th century warming was largely independent of CO2 because atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not yet risen to levels sufficient to cause detectable warming. This view is widely accepted by climate science, alarmist or otherwise.
There is a real concern that we are going into a “Dangerous cooling cycle.”
We may soon be looking into ways to warm the earth to ward off starvation and death from cold on a global scale. Unfortunately we will have to be halfway into an ice age before NASA admits they may be in error in their data and computer model.
Hilarious!
Thanks for lampooning David44’s post.
Since this is a scientific issue, the only people whose views matter are scientists, and there are no genuine skeptics regarding AGW in the climate science community. There are of course cranks in every field, and climate science is no exception – Richard Lindzen is one, Roy Spencer is another, but their arguments are readily shown to be disingenuous and insincere at best, and dishonest at worst – i.e. they are not genuinely held views by people of intellectual integrity. Their arguments are readily and repeatedly disproven, so they know they are not valid.
We know global warming is happening, that we are causing it, and that our present path has already started to cause substantial changes to the global climate, which will only become greater as time goes on. The issues now are how bad it’s going to get, and how soon – those are what we need to be working on. AGW denial is a dangerous and dishonest distraction from the real issues.
Well I used to work for Caltech at a NASA facility and I know what the so-called scientists were saying about AGW when they thought no one was listening, so you can knock off the crap.
Not falling for that hoax Jose, sorry.
You fell for one of the greatest hoaxes in history, so I really don’t care what you causes you to fall.
I was a part time academic for a few years being paid by Caltech and I learned a lot about how budgets at NASA funded.
As a “part-time academic” for Caltech, and in light of your contempt for your fellow academicians and scientists, I’m sure they were glad to see you go.
Ic, It’s hard to take your arguement seriously when appeal to authority is your only reasoning. Also refering to an MIT professor of atmospheric sciences as a “crank” shows a very limited understanding of the science.
No, there isn’t. Fake concern, perhaps.
We shall see.
Global cooling killing millions of bats
Federal researchers say an infectious and lethal cold-loving fungus sweeping through parts of North America and Canada has killed millions more bats over the last five years than previously estimated.
The rapidly spreading fungus responsible for white-nose syndrome is now believed to have killed 5.7 million to 6.7 million bats, a count several times higher than earlier estimates, across 16 states as far west as Oklahoma.
Jose,
I’m on your side in this debate, but you need to get your facts straight. The spread of the white-nose syndrome fungus is not a result of environmental cooling. By cold-loving, it is meant that the fungus thrives in the cool environment of bat caves. It has most likely been spread, at least initially, by spelunkers going from cave to cave with out decontaminating themselves and their gear just as boaters and fishermen inadvertently spread the New Zealand mud snail from river to river by not decontaminating waders and boat bottoms.
They weren’t my facts but I suppose I am responsible for repeating them. When you say “most likely” as how the fungus is spreading it does leave it open to global cooling as a possiblity.
Temperature sensors were put next to air conditioners, airplane exhaust, paved parking lots, etc. with resulting temperature increases. Then when the money sucking “scientists” were busted they subtracted a small magic number to compensate.
The axis of rotation for the molten spinning iron core in the earth could have a geothermal affect on the polar ice that has nothing to do with the atmosphere.
The science of global climate change is complex and there most likely are many variables that have not yet been accounted for.
Jose, the rapidly melting ice all over the planet testifies to just how fast we’re heating up the climate system. Glacier National Park in the US has already lost most of its glaciers. The Arctic will be ice-free in the summer by 2015, give or take a year. The rapidity of anthropogenic global warming has no analogue in the fossil record, not even in the mass extinction events millions of years ago. That’s because we’re adding greenhouse gases to the climate system about 10,000 times faster than nature normally does. This is a planetary emergency and the main reason we’re not making a wartime-scale effort to avert disaster is that gullible people were taken in by the fossil fuel industry’s AGW denial fraud, constructed to protect their short term profits. It’s a great pity that the education system failed these people, failed to give them a good grounding in science, reason, critical thinking. We’re all going to suffer for that failure.
Are you serious lacarus62? You need to read up on the actual science. Where is ice melt a concern? Ice has been receding since the little ice age, which has been without a doubt the most beneficial climatic shift for mankind since the MWP. I guess you missed the study published in Nature showing that the Himalayan glaciers have lost no ice over the last ten years. I guess they won’t be gone by 2035 as IPCC claimed. Heck, they wont be gone by 2350 either. More ice in Arctic since 2007. Antarctica on balance gaining substantial ice. You are not even close to right in any of your comments.
All the pro CAGW points here have zero substance to them. Appeals to authority, denigration of highly respected scientists, and no grasps of the basic scientific arguments. Can any of the previous posters present a CAGW hypothesis? What is the null hypothesis? Hypothetically speaking, if you could, for the next 200 years lock in a higher average global temperature of 1.5 C or a lower average global temperature of 1.5 C, which would you choose? And why? What are the economic impacts of increasing or decreasing temperatures? And yes, average global temperature is a bogus concept i realize, but these are interesting discussions to have if one is not so tied to a dogmatic line of thinking, some of you really should try it.
The science and solutions are still in flux. But, assuming Man Made Global Warming is true, what do the scientists want? “Decarbonize”.
Let’s see. Just in the last couple of weeks, EPA regulations have forced US utilities to close older coal fired plants. Six will close here in North East Ohio. Already, we will be scrambling to replace lost power and were warned to prepare for our bills to go up.
Meanwhile, India and the Chinese build the equivalent of one coal plant every week and no one seems to care. China sells more cars to its citizens then the US and India’s car industry is booming. It seems the point of decarbonize is to reduce the West to the Third World while letting China and India do what they will.
So there is no way people in the West will agree to that. Citizens will resist this international government overreach which has a Socialist Leftist undertone. It’s not only about “decarbonizing” but also the Left’s favorite goals of centralized control and punishing (in their view) the materialistic West.
We’re not going to ‘decarbonise’. Not by choice, anyway. The most likely scenario is that we burn most of the fossil fuels we can get our hands on, without any significant emissions reductions. The only way to avoid large global warming is to reduce our emissions virtually to zero in the next couple of decades, and clearly that’s not going to happen. There is too much profit to be had and we can’t run global civilisation on wind turbines and solar panels – we won’t stop using fossil fuels, because we can’t. Hence we’re heading back to the hotter climate state of millions of years ago. Perhaps the most pertinent question is how much more carbon we can get out of the ground and burn before the devastating effects of climate chaos cause a sufficient collapse of global civilisation to substantially reduce emissions for us.
Yes,you west have enjoyed car and other oil-powered vehicel for dacades and dacades,why not let chinese and indian share the results of industry?
This winter,global cooling is felt.Is this the result of the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by human activities?
This article is typical of the coverage on climate change – in an attempt be “balanced”, it covers the issue as if it were horse race, choosing just enough tidbits to sound balanced as the race proceeds. Unfortunately, the article excludes two very important facts – the Wall Street Journal had earlier refused to publish a similar letter from 255 scientists from the National Academy of Sciences that supported the mainstream view on climate change. And, more importantly, all of the “science” that the 16 scientists include in the article has been thoroughly debunked real climate scientists (see http://theconversation.edu.au/we-do-need-drastic-action-on-climate-change-a-response-to-the-wall-street-journal-5059 and http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2012/02/01/like-dentists-practicing-cardiology-climate-scientists-respond-to-wall-street-journal/. The latter article contains “In a letter to the WSJ, 38 climate science experts call down Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper for publishing an op-ed (“No Need to Panic About Global Warming”) “by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields,” the climate scientists’ letter says, “most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert.” As Stephen Schneider told us in an interview on his climate science expert credibility study, “It really matters what your credentials are. We’re talking about planetary life support. That’s why it’s so important to understand who’s credible.”). As a graduate of MIT, I’m embarrassed that an MIT professor would sign a letter that is so full of misinformation and only serves to distort the real understanding of the issues.
The wheels are coming off CAGW science.
Yes, I do believe in AGW. But Size Matters. (Not to mention the Motion of the Ocean.)
The only possible reason for serious concern is positive feedback. CO2 warming alone poses no danger whatever. The IPCC estimates that positive feedback will increase warming by four- to fivefold (mainstream scenario). Yet there is zip empirical evidence of positive feedback and growing evidence of negative feedback coming into play.
CO2 doubling is believed to have a raw effect of c. +1C. We added 40% during the 20th century (and 4% over the last flat-to-cooling decade). It is quite unlikely that the amount will be doubled by 2100. Not only are diminishing returns coming into play, but CO2 persistence time is still very much disputed.
The solar issue is still quite moot, so I am not commenting on that other than to say that if TSI is the relevant factor, there will be little effect on climate and if solar wind is the relevant factor, there may be considerable effect. As we may be approaching a Grand Minimum (The Ad Ho Minimum?), we may be about to find out.
When people believe a warmer, wetter and with more plants food (aka CO2) would be a catastrophe, merchant of fear can make them believe in anything
Evan Jones, I agree. Consider the following:
The fatal flaw
Several years ago Danish scientists, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen proposed a theory linking global climate with the activity of the sun, via cosmic rays.
Svensmark’s subsequent lab results demonstrated an observed link between cosmic rays and cloud formation. Whether the CLOUD study now underway at CERN will confirm this on a larger scale is a matter of conjecture at this point.
Critics of Svensmark’s theory point out that, while it may have shown fairly good correlation with global temperature in earlier years the link after around the mid-1980s is poor.
This is often referred to as the “fatal flaw” in Svensmark’s theory.
This argument may be valid, but it raises the question:
Is there an actually observed link between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature?
The Hadley Centre has a published record of “monthly globally averaged land and sea surface temperature” that goes back to 1850.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n … …
Actual measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration only started in 1958.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.htm … …
IPCC estimates based on ice core readings go back to pre-industrial times. These show an estimated gradual increase from around 285 ppm in 1850 to 315 ppm in 1958, when actual measurements started. See the IPCC 2007 SPM report:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
CO2 concentrations have risen steadily over the entire period. The rate of increase has accelerated slightly over the period, particularly following WWII.
Global temperatures have risen over the period, but a closer look at the record shows that this has been anything but steady.
Period…….Trend….Years..Change
1860-1879 +0.196 20 +0.39
1879-1906 -0.047 27 -0.13
1906-1940 +0.161 35 +0.56
1940-1976 -0.020 36 -0.07
1976-1998 +0.175 22 +0.39
1998-2008 0.000 10 .0.00
Trend is linear decadal trend in degreesC/decade
Change is linear change over period in degreesC
Over the past 150 years since the record started temperature has increased by around 1.1C.
Between 1850 and around 1860 there was a slight cooling trend.
This trend reversed to a warming trend for the next 20 years until around 1879 (at +0.196C per decade this period shows the highest decadal rate of increase since records have been taken) and represents around 30% of the total warming recorded since 1850. There was essentially no increase in CO2 during these “horse and buggy” years.
This was followed by another cooling trend until around 1906 (-0.047C per decade).
Then came another warming trend until around 1940 (+0.161C per decade), representing around 40% of the total warming recorded since 1850.
This period was followed by a slight cooling trend until around 1976 (-0.02C per decade), during the post-war boom period of rapid increase in CO2
Following this, we had a trend with the second highest decadal rate of increase (+0.175C per decade) from 1976 to around 1998. This trend occurred during a period of rapid CO2 increase and represented 30% of the total warming from 1850 to today. This period has gotten a lot of attention as evidence of anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW).
Since the end of the 20th century, this rapid warming trend has stopped. Over the ten-year period since 1998 there has actually been a very slight cooling trend, despite the continued high rate of increase of CO2. Starting the trend with the year 2001 rather than the strong El Niño year 1998 shows the same flat to slight cooling trend.
In summary, there were three warming periods that contributed to the overall warming plus two periods of cooling and the most recent “plateau” showing essentially no change.
And it appears that last 25 years of the 20th century provide the only observed link between CO2 and temperature.
The immediately preceding period had CO2 increase with cooling.
The immediately ensuing period since the end of the 20th century shows slight cooling with high increase in CO2.
The late 19th century warming period showed the highest rate of temperature increase of all periods recorded, with essentially no CO2 increase whatsoever.
The early 20th century warming period also showed warming, with relatively small increase in CO2.
In summary, the actually observed data show that there does not appear to be a very “robust” link between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature.
IPCC has used the late 20th century warming cycle to demonstrate the anthropogenic cause stating in its AR4 WG1 report Chapter 9 (p.681):
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1- …
“The simulations also show that it is not possible to reproduce large 20th-century warming without anthropogenic forcing regardless of which solar or volcanic forcing reconstruction is used,… stressing the impact of human activity on the recent warming.”
In other words, since no other cause can be identified to explain the observed warming other than anthropogenic forcing (from greenhouse gases), this must be the cause by default.
This assumption is based on the rather weak foundation of greenhouse theory, 25 years of observation, model studies, and conjecture.
Most damaging for this assumption is the fact that no analysis has been made of the two prior warming periods in order to support this suggestion, despite the fact that these periods together count for 70% of the warming observed over the entire record.
Strangely IPCC does not even mention the late 19th century period that showed the highest decadal rate of temperature rise of all periods since measurements started. Nor has an analysis been made to determine the causes for this period of rapid warming. It is obvious that it could not have been caused by increased CO2, as there was no significant increase. Sunspot records show no unusual solar activity that could have been a factor. What, then, were these “unexplained” causes? Why have they not been investigated?
As regards the warming period of the early 20th century, IPCC states (p.691):
“Detection and attribution as well as modelling studies indicate more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th-century warming than the recent warming.”
Again there are apparently “unexplained” causes resulting in “uncertainty”, but, again, no studies have been made to clear up this uncertainty and attempt to understand how large an impact these “unexplained” causes might have had.
Could these same “unexplained” causes have been the principle forcing factor for the late 20th century warming, rather than the assumed “anthropogenic forcing” from greenhouse gases? How can we be sure this is not the case?
Only by making these analyses and clearly identifying that there were no major “unexplained” factors in the two earlier warming periods can one make the claim that AGW is the predominant forcing factor for late 20th century warming
To simply assert that this is so “by default” since no other explanation can be found is no argument at all.
Svensmarck may (or may not) be right. In any event, it looks as if we’re about to find out!
It’s true that CO2 and temperatures don’t correlate very well. I think CO2 is an underlying fingerprint, but is relatively minor and just one of several influences. I believe that other anthropogenic influences are greater than CO2 (such as land use, deforestation, soot accumulation in the Arctic, etc.).
As for heat budget, we are finally just beginning to develop tools to measure that. We’ll find out about that, too. And feedbacks.
Yes, kids, there is definitely a legitimate debate here. And one heck of a lot to learn.
IPCC says that ONLY solar insolation causes warming. So that means that there is no such thing as the Moon’s gravity causing tidal energy, and there is no such thing as Decay Heat from disintegrating Uranium etc causing 52% of the Earth’s Temperature (Nature Geoscience July 2011), and no such thig as the variable orbit of Jupiter and Saturn causing warming and cooling. Since the Moon’s orbit causes the variable tidal energy, why doesn’t the 60 year cycle caused by Jupiter and Saturns resonance orbit cause the 60 year warming cooling cycle in the temperature record (eg 1500 warms to 1530 & cools to 1560, Hadcrut temp measurements show warming to 1880, cooling to 1910, warming to 1940, cooling to 1970, warming to 1998, cooling thru now etc
Sorry but you all can NOT just claim CO2 “causes” without some basic scientific justification and logic. If CO2 causes then just where is all this hotter than the air CO2?. The CO2 is AT THE SAME temperature as the air. Just because some idiot IPCC researchers claim that the sun’s solar insolation does NOT cause warming, does NOT mean that some other unknown cause (eg gravity) can NOT cause it. Basic science says CO2 is totally incapable of creating energy. It can NOT cause warming unless you can identify the source of the energy. YOU HAVE NOT DONE THAT. END of absurd discussion.
“Basic science says CO2 is totally incapable of creating energy” – absolutely true – but totally irrelevant
“It can NOT cause warming unless you can identify the source of the energy” -Easy – the source is the infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface – the CO2 absorbs the radiation and warms up. It’s all part of the “greenhouse effect’, which is why the Earth supports life and why the Moon is cold.
“The plain fact is that trying to detect and measure underlying trends in very small and noisy sets of just 10 temperature data points is very poor statistical practice.”
On the other hand, what you are doing (plotting from 1970) is including a period from 1976 – 2001 where all six of the major oceanic-atmospheric oscillations (PDO, AMO, NAO,SO, AO,AAO) flipped from cool phase to warm phase — entirely on schedule. You bet your boots there was “a very strong and unambiguous warming trend that is statistically significant”.
But the 1976 – 2001 slope is almost identical to the 1910 – 1940 period when the PDO was in warm phase. And prior to 1950 there was little CO2 emitted compared with the 1950 – 2000 period. Same degree of warming, greatly different levels of CO2 emission. Therefore CO2 is demonstrated not to be the primary driver.
(This begs the question of whether the surface stations were intended to or are even capable of making such fine measurements — which they’re not.)
Author: Bruce Parker
Comment:
To see why a trace gas like CO2 can drive the climate, just look at the science.
1. If there was no CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth’s temperature would be about 60 degrees colder than it is (not sure 60 is right, but that’s about the right amount)
2. Doubling CO2 to 560 pmm (from the amount in 1750) will raise the Earth’s temp about 1.5 degrees all by itself
3. As the atmosphere warms, it holds more water vapor, and that adds significantly to the temp.
4. The final result is a about at 3 degree warming for a doubled CO2 in the short run.
This is not speculation. I know it’s hard to believe that a trace gas can have such an influence, but the effect can be shown with simple physics and math
Wow Bruce, did you really graduate from MIT? Hard to believe. Do they have a good liberal arts program? So you propose that CO2 by itself raises the temperature of the planet by 60 degrees? That is a completely ignorant statement. And if it were true, how would doubling CO2 only raise the temperature by another 1.5 degrees???? How does that make any sense? You have no idea what you are talking about. It is very sad when a supposed graduate of MIT, ridicules a brilliant and highly accomplished fellow alum, all the while displaying a complete lack of understanding of the basic science of the matter.
Greenhouse gas forcings are straightforward calculations from the spectroscopic properties of the gas molecules – they are not in dispute. That’s why even so-called ‘skeptical’ scientists such as Richard Lindzen agree that the ‘no feedback’ warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ is around 1°C.
If we know that the Earth has a radiative imbalance of 3.7W/m², which is the magnitude of the forcing from doubled atmospheric CO₂ (from 280 to 50ppm), we can use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to work out how much it has to warm up in order for outgoing radiation to increase by 3.7W/m² and thereby return to equilibrium. Agreed? That gives us the ‘no feedback’ warming, and it’s almost exactly 1°C.
The only *genuine* debate (not including dishonest nonsense from the AGW denialist hoaxers) is over positive feedbacks, which Lindzen argues are non-existent, but the rest of the climate science community finds to be substantial, amplifying global warming by about 3 times in the short term from fast feedbacks (mainly water vapour and floating ice) and possibly twice as much again from slow feedbacks (ice sheets, greenhouse gases etc.).
From 1900 to 2010, CO₂ rose from about 290 to 380ppm. Can we agree on that? The ‘no-feedback’ warming would therefore be calculated as follows:
ΔF = 5.35 * ln(C/C₀)
= 5.35 * ln(380/290)
= 1.44W/m²
ΔT = ΔF * 0.27 (because as everyone agrees, the ‘no feedback’ warming from CO₂ is about 1°C from a doubling of CO₂, and a doubling of CO₂ is a forcing of about 3.7W/m², and hence the no-feedback climate sensitivity would be 1/3.7 = 0.27°C/W/m²).
Therefore ΔT in this scenario is 1.44 * 0.27 = 0.39°C at equilibrium. Climate inertia means that we would expect to see about 60% of that in 2010, i.e. about 0.23°C.
As you’re no doubt aware, we have seen much more warming in the period than that – about 0.7°C, or 3 times as much. Numerous studies show that net natural temperature change over this period would have been roughly zero in the absence of anthropogenic forcings, and we know that the net anthropogenic forcing is about equivalent to the CO₂ forcing, so this 0.7°C of warming can be attributed to the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO₂.
Clearly the existence of large positive feedback is very much supported by this data – in fact, a factor of 3 (i.e. 0.27/0.23=3.04) is precisely what climate scientists are citing as the best estimate for fast feedback climate sensitivity, as Bruce correctly says.
How many years was the flat earth theory “not in dispute?”
Someone above mentioned the Argo buoys as the only reputable tool to determine whether or not we are warming and so far the verdict is cooling.
You can take pieces of science and try to extrapolate it out to some political agenda but reality is reality.
So you agree with Bruce saying that CO2 is responsible for 60 degrees (or approximately so) of the planets temperature?
The existance of positive feedbacks is anything but settled! Do you assume the temperature of the planet will stay the same if “man caused” atmospheric Co2 output were eliminated? If so, you ignore the entire history of the planet. If not, than what is the level of natural variation not attributed to Co2, and what is its cause? (since you are so sure on the precise impact of CO2 this should be easy for you). What were the primary drivers of the planet’s climate coming out of the Little Ice Age, prior to industrialization? Why have temperatures level off, no temp increase or a slight decrease over the last 15 years, even though CO2 levels continue to rise? Negative Feedbacks perhaps. How much of the rise in CO2 levels over the last couple hundred years is due to man’s burning of fossil fuels, 100%??? Why had it changed so dramatically prior to industrialization?
Finally answer this. If most climate experts believe in positive feedbacks of 3x’s in the short term, multiplied by 2x in the long term, as you claim, where is the steelply rising curve of temperature over the last 15 years? And shouldn’t “long term x 2 ” have kicked in already for all of the CO2 added from the 50’s through the 90’s. Your claims are preposterous based on the actual temperature data. Have you checked out the satellite data on atmospheric temps? How about the Argo data? Where is the accellerating temperatures? Go back and read all of the model predictions your camp likes to parrot about. How many years of failure will it take for you to admit that the models have been extremely poor predictors in the short term, therefore worthless in forecasting the long term. Really, under what circumstances will you admit that the theory of catastrophic global warming is hogwash?
Ask him how much of his career is invested in this idea.
answer to lacarus62….
No one with a brain disputes the greenhouse effect or that CO2 contributes some warming. Your argument is essentially that since you can’t explain the difference between what you calculate to be the primary effect of added CO2 (excluding feedbacks) that it must be due to a positive feedback. REALLY? It must be? Does your statement follow the scientific method. How about a change in aerosols? How about a change in cloud cover due to a flux in cosmic rays?
Again, can you explain the changes in climate prior to mankind burning significant amounts of fossil fuels? Or do you believe that climate was static until we started screwing it up? You and bruce seem to ignore all of the question i pose.
It would be simple and probably nice if the earth’s climate and ocean actions could be explained with something as simple as a trace gas, carbon dioxide, that makes up .035-8% of the atmosphere and 15.1% of the ocean’s makeup but only simple people could believe such a thing. They should know just how dynamic and complex the climate is and all of the factors that affect it before making such a flawed judgment. Here are some sites to look into, if you care to. The biggest flows out of the atmosphere are photosynthesis on land and CO2 uptake by cold ocean water. These are about 30 times and 40 times respectively the flow of carbon into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning. What follows also adre3sses the utterly insane allegation that CO2 is increasing the acidity of the oceans.
“The pycnocline (meaning rapid change of density) separates the surface layer of the ocean from the deep ocean. Deep ocean water has a temperature of about 3 degrees Celsius and a salinity measuring about 34-35 psu.” (What does all of this do to the ocean’s pH? Where and what depth are your pH observations taken from?)
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/deep_ocean.html
“The interaction between water temperature and salinity effects density and density determines thermohaline circulation, or the global conveyor belt. The global conveyor belt is a global-scale circulation process that occurs over a century-long time scale. Water sinks in the North Atlantic, traveling south around Africa, rising in the Indian Ocean or further on in the Pacific, then returning toward the Atlantic on the surface only to sink again in the North Atlantic starting the cycle again.” (Again, your narrow time span makes your worries groundless if you are looking at 20-30 years and who & where and at what depths were these readings taken regarding PH? Also NASA seems to want to compress this circulation time span into centuries when most believe it is at least a thousand year cycle)
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-water-cycle/
“As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit. It represents in a simple way how ocean currents carry warm surface waters from the equator toward the poles and moderate global climate.” [The Global Conveyer Belt has suddenly stopped for several speculated reason in the past and caused dramatic and rapid climate changes always to the cold side; therefore, warm is preferable to cold any day]
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-water-cycle/
“As water temperature increases, the increased mobility of gas molecules make them escape from the water, thereby reducing the amount of gas dissolved. [Could this be why warming forces the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by hundreds years & not what the alarmist want one to believe that it is the CO2 that is causing the warming?]
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/seawater.htm
“It is thought that the carbon dioxide in the sea exists in equilibrium with that of exposed rock and bottom sediment containing limestone CaCO3 (or sea shells for that matter). In other words, that the element calcium exists in equilibrium with CO3. But the concentration of Ca (411ppm) is 10.4 mmol/l and that of all CO2 species (90ppm) 2.05 mmol/l, of which CO3 is about 6%, thus 0.12 mmol/l. Thus the sea has a vast oversupply of calcium. It is difficult therefore to accept that decalcification could be a problem as CO3 increases. To the contrary, it should be of benefit to calcifying organisms. Thus the more CO2, the more limestone is deposited. This has also been borne out by measurements (Budyko 1977).” [maybe, just maybe as with so many things in nature, this is a self-regulating factor that has been taking care of the ocean’s pH without humans having one thing to do with it]
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm
You show your extreme ignorance of climate change science by making accusations that are incredibally uniformed on basic science. The paragraphs below are from the NOAA Web site (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html) and confirms my #1 above. If you look at other science-based Web sites, you will find confirmation of the other three points. I challenge you to refute my points. Otherwise I think I’m due an appology.
1. What is the greenhouse effect, and is it affecting our climate?
The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth’s natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively ‘trap’ heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.
(May have accitentally posted this in the wrong place below)
You show your extreme ignorance of climate change science by making accusations that are incredibally uniformed on basic science. The paragraphs below are from the NOAA Web site (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html) and confirms my #1 above. If you look at other science-based Web sites, you will find confirmation of the other three points. I challenge you to refute my points. Otherwise I think I’m due an appology.
1. What is the greenhouse effect, and is it affecting our climate?
The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth’s natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively ‘trap’ heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.
Bruce, no one doubts the existance of the greenhouse effect. Please cite your evidence for a positive feedback mechanism from CO2 forcings.
without that CAGW cannot occur from increases in CO2 alone. You said CO2 was responsible for 60 degrees of our temperature and that is flat out crazy. you did not say the greenhouse effect in its entirety is responsible for 60 degrees, and even if you had, the numbers you cite to arrive at the 60 degree figure whether CO2 is at 300 ppm or 500 and in of themselves say nothing about the role of CO2 in the process. Answer some of my simple questions above to show me why i should be worried about the increase of a trace gas in the atmosphere that is essential to our biosphere.
CO2 and it’s feedbacks (water vapor,etc) are responsible for the 60 degrees according to NASA. It may sound crazy and not be intuitive, but it’s a fact.
For a great explanation of the role of CO2 search for “CO2 Control Knob”. Among the results are the following Web pages:
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/whatonearth/posts/post_1262067702260.html
http://www.globalchangeblog.com/2010/10/co2-is-the-biggest-climate-control-knob/
Let me know if you have any other simpe questions.
NASA cannot even launch an astronaut into space. They are extremely desperate for funding. Why should we listen to them?
Bruce,
Your simplistic and glib response illustrates your ignorance. Water Vapor is not simply a feedback of CO2. Water vapor is the most prevelant and signficant greenhouse gas. CO2’s total contribution of the entire greenhouse effect is no where near 60 degrees. While there is a theory that higher amounts of CO2 has a positive feedback by increasing the content of water vapor in the atmosphere that is not what you said. IF you can not understand the difference between what you stated, what i called you on, and where you still make an ignorant errror “CO2 and its feedbacks are responsible for 60 degrees….” you are a lost cause.
But since you asked for another simple question, answer this if you can. What is the cause of the increase in temperature coming out of the little ice age prior to the industrialization of civilization?
Greenhouse gases do NOT trap heat. Where the hell IS all this trapped heat? They absorb it & either pass it on (by collisions) or radiate it away.
You are right – “They absorb it & either pass it on (by collisions) or radiate it away.” – that’s what warms the atmosphere – and the more GHGs, the warmer the atmosphere gets!
pass it on (by collisions) = warms the atmosphere
radiate it away (but at a lower energy) = to be absorbed by other GHG and the cycle repeats – warming the atmosphere
the more GHGs, the warmer the atmosphere gets!
I dispute both of those premises.
We do know with relative certainly that the earth would be considerably cooler if there were no CO2. We do not know by how much. And we also do not know for sure where on the diminishing returns curve we stand.
What we do know is that after a rise of 40% of CO2, we have an adjusted temperature increase of 0.7C, considerably lower if going by raw temperatures.
Second, without feedbacks, temperature would be expected to rise around 1C per doubling of CO2. Not 1.5C for a <40% increase as you have stated.
Third, ambient vapor has increased very little. High-level clouds have also increased very little. Those are positive feedbacks. What has increased significantly is low-level cloud cover. That is a negative feedback.
More important, we have seen no evidence of positive feedback during the 20th century. Surely if they were in play, we would have seen them by now. Or perhaps these sensitivities are in play, but the forcing has been exaggerated.
The IPCC mainstream scenario is greater than +3C. This is four to five times the rate of the adjusted trend of the 20th century. Perhaps 8 times or more the raw trend. And considering the last decade of flat-to-cooling trend, that goes up to 6 to 10 times the rate of warming that occurred last century.
Final result: If AGW wants to meet its +3C goal, it had better get off its butt and get one heck of a move on. And I ain't seein' it.
What I am seeing is a negative PDO flip, a wavering AMO and NAO, and a potential DeVries cycle Grand Minimum (degree and effects unknown, but clearly not on the warm side).
No, my simplistic response illustrates YOUR ignorance, because it’s really simple – increase CO2, temp goes up, you get more water vapor, etc. It is FACT that is “higher amounts of CO2 has a positive feedback by increasing the content of water vapor” – that is what I meant -sorry if it was not clear. And it still seems that you don’t believe NOAA when you write “where you still make an ignorant error “CO2 and its feedbacks are responsible for 60 degrees….” you are a lost cause.” Are climate scientists lost causes? What will it take to convince you that you are wrong? I’d be delighted to look any scientific arguments you have that support another thesis.
Did you even bother to look at two links I included? Richard Alley (sp?) gives a very good talk on the CO2 “control knob” – much better that I can do.
For one possibility for “the little Ice Age” – see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/volcanoes-little-ice-age_n_1243976.html. “Coming out” was probably just a return to “normal conditions”. (See also http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1257 which reviews the previous theory. I highly recommend the skeptical science Web site – it’s a good place to see what climate scientists have to say about almost all of the skeptics arguments)
I’m not Bruce but if I had to pull an answer out of my rear end it would be volcanoes.
I’ve heard that one big volcano puts out more green house gases than the total created by mankind. If twenty major volcanoes went off at about the same time maybe it would have had an effect.
GET YOUR OWN SIDEBAR WIDGET – INSTRUCTIONS BELOW:
This sidebar widget can be used for any website or blog by anyone free of charge.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/widget/
Dear VOA
Please continue your coverage in spite of the malice of those who wish you to be silent. Your history is Golden. Now make an even bigger contribution.
Please, be America’s voice. Let the frightening of children cease. Let the Intellectual Left’s dedication to collectivism be exposed for what it is.
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Climate_Change_Email_02.12.pdf
I repeat Bob’s question
Can any of the previous posters present a CAGW hypothesis? What is the null hypothesis?
The CAGW hypothesis is easy to explain and rests on the four assumptions below. Any serious attempt to rebut the hypothesis merely needs to explain why there is a high probability that the climate sensitivity is less than three and/or that warming above 2 degrees C will be OK.
Assumptions:
1. The Earth has warmed 0.8 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times
2. About 45% of annual CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere
3. Climate sensitivity is very likely about 3 degrees C for a doubled CO2
4. A 2 degree C increase will most likely cause significant climate disruption
a. Recent studies indicate that even 1 degree C increase will be harmful
b. Limiting the rise to 1 degree C is seen as impossible
Concentrations and Emissions
1. The pre-industrial CO2 concentration was about 280 parts per million
2. The current CO2 concentration is about 392 parts per million
3. The CO2 concentration is growing at about 2 ppm/year
4. The Earth’s atmosphere contains about 830 GTC
5. Current CO2 emissions are about 10GTC/year
6. CO2 emissions are increasing at about 3%/year
Calculations
To limit the increase to 2 degrees C, CO2 must be less than 450 ppm
Total atmospheric CO2 must be limited to about 954 GTC
Total atmospheric CO2 must not increase more than about 125 GTC
The carbon emissions budget for this rest of this century is about 280 GTC
At current accelerating rate of emissions, the emissions budget will be exceeded in 2030
If this rate continues the temperature could increase 5.5-6 degrees C by 2100 (IEA)
Accurate estimates of proven fossil fuel reserves are hard to come by.
The following is from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2011
Fossil Fuel Reserves
Oil 1,383 billion barrels
Canadian Tar Sands 143 billion barrels
Coal 860,938 million tons
Natural Gas 6,608 trillion cubic feet
Fossil Fuel 2010 Consumption
Oil 31 billion barrels
Canadian Tar Sands .5 billion barrels
Coal 7,273 million tons
Natural Gas 111 trillion cubic feet
Fossil Fuel GTC 2010
Oil 3.64
Canadian Tar Sands .06
Coal 4.3
Natural Gas 2.0
Total 10GTC
Fossil Fuel Total GTC thru 2030 at 3% growth
Oil 104
Canadian Tar Sands 2
Coal 123
Natural Gas 57
Total 286GTC
Bruce your assumptions are at best wildly speculative… I reasonably ask the following regarding your assumptions
1. How much of the .8 degree increase is natural variation and how much is anthropogenic? please cite peer reviewed studies if you believe natural variation does not/did not contribute and why it stopped as over this timeframe still coming out of LIA.
2. Cite source please, but lets just accept this for now.
3. There is no data that shows this. Please don’t tell me you are relying solely on computer models that have been wrong time and time again. What empirical data shows this? This claim is baseless, has never been proven, and to have this in your original assumptions negates the rest of your argument, unless you have proof.
4. Is this assumption based on model outputs or hard data? cite papers please.
5 and 6 don’t mean much if 2 -4 are not back up by hard science.
Well i doubt Bruce has even considered the existence of or logic behind having a null hypothesis for CAGW. And Bruce, Dr. Alley is a total activist. Here is but one article.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175b568a-802a-23ad-4c69-9bdd978fb3cd
I love this quote…Dr. Alley’s handout stated in part, “We don’t think Greenland could melt completely in less than many centuries, but it might get warm enough this century to start complete melting.” I mean, WTF???? What does that say? Ridiculous.
while i have no doubt Dr. Alley is a very smart guy, most of his ideas are way on the fringe. Do you realize he predicted a 20 degree C rise for global warming was possible by end of the century? No one else believes that can happen from man’s use of fossil fuels. absurd.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/24/dr-richard-alley-expects-20-degrees-of-warming/
He is a climate model hugger, who fear mongers to push forward his political agenda. Can’t remember who to attribute this quote to … ” extraordinary predictions require extraordinary evidence” or words to that effect. It is not the skeptics who have to prove anything. Finally, it is unlikely that Volcanism could throw us into the Little ice age. Volcanic effects are generally only measure in years not decades or centuries. Short of Massive super volcano erruptions or periods where extreme volcanism lasted many, many years, that is unlikely. Since the LIA lies withing the human historical record we know that not to be the case. More likely Maunder minimum, and certainly a non human caused process. And that was my point! Whatever the reason, it is clear the climate can change significantly, move back the other direction, regardless of high CO2, low co2, and certainly without any influence by man. So why on God’s green earth is it unreasonable to believe that most of the warming over the last 150 years plus is NATURAL?
Again, what is the CAGW null hypothesis. Under what conditions would you accept that the premise is wrong?
Bob –
As I said above, I will willingly accept that the CAWG hypothesis is wrong if you can scientifically refute any of my four assumpions above. Under what conditions would you accept that the premise is right?
To bad to don’t understand Alley – “I love this quote…Dr. Alley’s handout stated in part, “We don’t think Greenland could melt completely in less than many centuries, but it might get warm enough this century to start complete melting.” I mean, WTF???? What does that say? Ridiculous.” – have you lost your reasoning ability?
1. Dr Alley thinks it will take many centuries for all of the ice in Greenland to melt
2. If it gets warm enough this century, all of the Greenland ice will eventually melt
Ok Bruce,
I understand Alley, but it is an alarmist and useless comment from a scientist.
So IF it gets really warm really soon, and STAYS THAT WAY for MANY CENTURIES Greenland icecap will melt. Profound.
Wow, that is deep thinking and very valuable to know.
And if the climate cools considerably and stays that way for many centuries, we will have a new ice age…… Attribute that one to me, it is just as valid a statement, and i am not a PHD.
Forgot add that you really should refrence only more up-to-date links – the one you listed was for 2007.
This one is from 2010 (http://www.livescience.com/6462-greenland-rising-rapidly-ice-melts.html)
The ice is melting so fast in Greenland that the giant island is rising noticeably as the weight is lifted. In some spots, the land is rising 1 inch per year.
and another from last year:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/uh-oh-greenland-and-antarctica-melting-faster-than-expected.ars
Uh-oh. Greenland and Antarctica melting faster than expected
Gee Bruce, great line of argumentation. How in the hell does my referencing quotes and claims from Dr. Alley, as shown in articles from 2007 matter. You want me to find an article from 2012 that reports on ridiculous claims made in 2007? In what context is what i said, and cited about Dr. Alley time sensitive? Get a clue.
How about this for recent…….
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/14/sea-level-still-not-cooperating-with-predictions/
Looks like all of that melting ice is joining all of the missing heat from the model predictions. And while i am not suggesting that sea levels are falling in any statistically significant way, the rate of sea level rise is certainly not accellerating as per predictions. Isn’t that what is suppossed to happen? Ice melt is supposedly greater now then when coming out of LIA, but sea level rise not accelerating? What gives Bruce?
1. The .8 degree increase is not used in any calcs, and is provided for info purposes only. see http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php for “These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades.”
2. Emissions in atmosphere
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/anthropogenic-climate-change.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
https://public.ornl.gov/site/gallery/detail.cfm?id=313&topic=&citation=24&general=&restsection=
3 Climate sensitivity – see
http://www.skepticalscience.com/detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html
http://globalchange.mit.edu/news/news-item.php?id=88
(If you don’t belive something form MIT, what will you believe?)
For paleocliamate – see http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf
Why do you think the claim is baseless? Almost all climate scientists think it’s in the range 2.5-4.5. Do you know of a peered-reviewed paper which shows it’s a lower value?
4. Effects of 2 degrees of warming
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1803317/updated-ipcc-chief-warns-degree-rise-spells-bad-news
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2009/08/g8s-2-degrees-goal/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/04/hit-the-brakes-hard/
Here’s some more on the effects of global warming in the US
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/climate-costs-of-inaction.pdf
And here’s a good site on the basics of global warming
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/
It’s called Greenland because it used to be green. It’s simply going back to the condition it was previously known to be.
One place melts and another place freezes. It’s been going on for millions of years and it’s normal. It takes an extreme amount of vanity to think you can put a thermostat on the earth and dial in the desired temperature.
More on climate sensitivity from MIT
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/explained-climate-sensitivity.html
The VOA author writes:”A few days after the letter appeared, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) released a study which finds human activity contributes to global warming.
The NASA study, “Earth’s energy imbalance and implications,” was recently published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
The study was led by James Hansen, director of GISS, a respected scientist who is well known for his work in climatology.”
The author should have taken a closer look. I did a search of the references at the end of this document. James Hansen, an author, cited his own work 16 times. The IPCC is cited. The copyright dates in the References section are from 2007 and older. This is hardly a ground-breaking study. Only Joe Romm at ThinkProgress, Hansen’s buddy, published it as news. Here they are at work:
http://wonkette.com/426305/nasa-zombie-alliance-hosts-climate-change-apocalypse-rally
…………..Interestingly, NASA and NOAA just launched a satellite that was commissioned to bolster Al Gore’s alarmist claims of runaway global heating. It is 6 years late in getting on 0rbit, ridiculously over budget and is still working through its commissioning phase so it can move into an operational state. Yet the NPP Soumi satellite has already captured some amazing data – and it completely destroys the IPCC’s basic models of energy balance.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/18073
“Any serious attempt to rebut the hypothesis merely needs to explain why there is a high probability that the climate sensitivity is less than three”
There is zip emprical evidence for positive feedback. CO2 is up c. 40% from 1900 to 2000 and the “adjusted” temperature increase is c. 0.7C. (The real increase being around half that.)
That, despite continuing, natural recovery from the LIA, many other anthropogenic inputs. And the period covered (the 20th century) consisting of 60% PDO warm phase vs. 40% cool phase, when you’d need a 50-50 split to avoid pro-warming cherrypicking.
So where is the 1C to 2C positive feedback? Either the sensitivity is for the birds or the fundamental forcing equation is way off. You can’t get away from the data. Even if stipulating the the exaggerated adjusted data is correct. (And it ain’t.)
“and/or that warming above 2 degrees C will be OK.”
Call me when we get there. But we almost certainly won’t. And any impact on the environment will have been dwarfed by man’s normal activites (going on strong since well before the Pleistocene Overkill).
“Uh-oh. Greenland and Antarctica melting faster than expected”
Unless it isn’t. SL rise is dropping off over the past few years. And even at its worst it was c. 3mm, per year, which is a foot per century. Man the lifeboats.
Without strong positive feedbacks, CAGW theory is sunk. Wake me when we see any. Etraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and the “known” (read “exaggerated”) Tmean trend data speaks for itself, even if one accepts it at face value (which one shouldn’t).
Warming? Yes. But size matters.
My final post to this thread –
A quote from the Saudi Oil Minister Ali I. Al-Naimi, January 2012:
Greenhouse gas emissions and global warming are among humanity’s most pressing concerns.
You can view a great PDF on climate change from the “Republicans for Environmental Protection” web site at http://www.rep.org/climate_presentation.html
The PDF is at http://www.rep.org/Hayhoe_Climate.pdf.
The science for potentially disruptive climate change is undeniable – please take the time to really understand the science and don’t just “bluster” about how implausible it is. Your children’s and grandchildren’s future is at stake and you owe it to yourself to be fully informed. The CAGW hypothesis is not 100% certain, but the probability is high enough that we need to start taking action now.
Fine Bruce, let’s make this the final post. We can leave it by saying you accept so many dogmatic beliefs about global warming, that you are unable or unwilling to open your mind. You keep citing opinion pieces, all from the pro AGW side. Fact of the matter is, if you take away Mann’s hockey stick (completely debunked statistically) and you take away the climate models (even the constructors admit they are not scientific forecasts!), there is Literaly zero argument for catastrophic global warming, and the need to take action to lower our carbon output. ZERO. So you can continue to enjoy believing in a myth, while the slow wind down of the CAGW hysteria fades into the ether forever. Unfortunately we may be living with the terrible consequences of higher fuel costs, food cost spikes (ethanol anyone?) and the hidden taxation of the EPA radical regulation agenda for quite some time. It seems like you heard it here first, so you will be able to look back at this moment and ponder. CAGW is dead as a theory and concern. I hope the planet stays this warm or gets a little warmer. The alternative sucks.
i guess i couldn’t let is go. Bruce sited this…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html
In which is presented the following ridiculous claim….
.
What a complete load of crap. So one can’t argue that sensitivity to C02 is low, but is higher for other forcings like cosmic ray flux? What an illogical argument this piece presents. Bruce, can you not see the fallacy in this argument. Ok follow allong with me. Let’s take the first sentence as accurrate even though it is an ignorant statement. So accepting that C02 sensitivity is high, by their logic, sensitivity must also be high for all of the other influences as well. If that is the case, how can changes in climate seperate the signal from the other influences with high sensitvity?
Skeptical Science is a worthless site Bruce. You really should check out Watts up with that, or for more of a pro AGW leaning site, Science of Doom. It is heavy stuff, but you can learn so much about the processes we have discussed here. Real Climate and Skeptical Science have about as much credibility as Media Matters and Acorn, in regards to agenda bias.
The claim didn’t print. Will try this again below……..
A common misconception is that the climate sensitivity and temperature change in response to increasing CO2 differs from the sensitivity to other radiative forcings, such as a change in solar irradiance. This, however, is not the case. The surface temperature change is proportional to the sensitivity and radiative forcing (in W m-2), regardless of the source of the energy imbalance.
In other words, if you argue that the Earth has a low climate sensitivity to CO2, you are also arguing for a low climate sensitivity to other influences such as solar irradiance, orbital changes, and volcanic emissions. Thus when arguing for low climate sensitivity, it becomes difficult to explain past climate changes. For example, between glacial and interglacial periods, the planet’s average temperature changes on the order of 6°C (more like 8-10°C in the Antarctic). If the climate sensitivity is low, for example due to increasing low-lying cloud cover reflecting more sunlight as a response to global warming, then how can these large past climate changes be explained?
Utter nonsense……
No, an inconvenient truth. Are your denial blinders on? What doesn’t make sense?
Bear in mind that the objection of the CAGW advocates present is not merely against skeptical scientific points, but against the very notion that debate even be countenanced.
That is a sublimely anti-scientific and outstandingly anti-liberal position.
The proposition, held by the vast majority of CAGW (“post-normal science”) advocates, that data and methods may be concealed (even deliberately destroyed), yet the results must mandate immediate, extraordinarily costly policy decisions is quite extraordinary, and flatly contrary to scientific method — or prudence.
In reality, honest debate and scientific scepticism is welcomed. Real scientists object to the misrepresentation, cherry-picking, slander and outright lying that the AGW deniers routinely use to confuse and deceive the public. Since the evidence overwhelmingly supports dangerous AGW, the deniers’ only recourse is rank dishonesty, and they use it freely and shamelessly. It’s all they have.
Icarus62, did you read the whole post when you responded?
The concealment of methods and destruction of data are not conducive to “honest debate and scientific scepticism.”
And how many times has Hansen reported “the science is settled?”
I am very concerned of the few people left that are capable of independent thought.
Some methoids were concealed, but that is actaully standard practice. I also believe that some of the methods have since been posted to the internet. Do you have specific examples the “concealment of methods and destruction of data”?
And specifically what about the science is not settled?
Science deals in speficics, not inuendos or accusations that are not backed up by actual observations.
> Some methoids were concealed, but that is actaully standard practice.
That’s a good one Enviro. It is standard practice if the purpose is to prevent “honest debate and scientific scepticism.”
> And specifically what about the science is not settled?
The part of the “science” that says people are causing climate change.
You can think of methods as intellectual property. Even the skeptics do not always divulge their methods. But in the case of the CRU, the methods have been made public. Hiding methods does NOT prevent honest debate – “cherry picking” data and dis-information does not contribute to an honest debate.
The science that says humans cause most (not necessarily all) of the climate change IS settled – it’s simply the bruning of the fossil fuel. See:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-indicators-of-a-human-fingerprint-on-climate-change.html
To Enviro – for starters.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
Next
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html
The link is dated Nov 2009. ALL detailed examinations of the complete set of emails and CRU data found NOTHING that indicated problems with their methods and data.I’ll look of links at a later time. In addition, ALL other scientiic measurements reach similar conclusions as the CRU. You are being duped by the fossil fuel industry that wants you to believe that nothing is wrong (so they can contiunue to make their fat profits)
Enviro: The leaked CRU email showed comments in the methods they used that indicated they knew they were lying and is obviious to any objective person why they continue to hide their methods.
You are also ignoring the facts and trying to deflect the argument towards the oil companies when in fact the oil companies make money from the global climate scare too. They make money either way the “science” goes in the way of tax breaks, carbon credits, etc.
I submit it is in fact you who are duped.
How naive can you get! If the “climate scare” is real, the only solution is to stop burining fossil fuels, and the oil/coal companiues will be forced out of business by 2040 or 2050. That is why they are waging a dis-information campaign.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the CRU emails – I prefer rigours reviews like “Muir Russell Report: Jones and the CRU Vindicated (Again)” (see http://mediaecologies.wordpresshpcom/2010/07/07/muir-russell-report-jones-and-the-cru-vindicated-again/). You seem to be happy with cherry-picking bits and pieces of some of the emails. The dis-information campaign seems to resonate with people like you. Some day you will wake up and realize that 97% of climate scentists are not wrong in believing there is a high probability (not a certainty) that the climate will change in ways that are harmful to our civilization, and that the only prudent thing to do is to take moderate steps to quickly reduce CO2 emissions .
Enviro:
Without access to the methods used to reach a conclusion, there is no such thing as honest debate on whether the conclusion is correct.
One volcano puts out more greenhouse gases than all of human kind had done with their fossil fuels over the period of their entire existence. The presumption that the CRU was vindicated was nothing more than a cover up.
Climate scare is real and designed to pillage as much money as possible and denying development to third world countries. It is promoted by a few corporations that know how to use the power of government to achieve a monopoly by preventing competitors from emerging.
Enviro – I strongly suspect you’re not reading the links. I further suspect you haven’t asked a good question in many many years. Is your livelihood related to this idea perhaps?
………….Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever resigned as a fellow from the American Physical Society, saying he could not live with its nonsensical endorsement of global-warming alarmism. Dr. Giaever joins a host of other eminent scientists who have dismissed concerns over global warming, including Freeman Dyson, a Princeton physicist and America’s best known scientist, Antonino Zichichi, the president of the World Federation of Scientists and Italy’s best known scientist, Claude Allegre, a former socialist Minister of National Education, Research and Technology and France’s best-known scientist, and America’s Reid Bryson, known as the “father of scientific climatology” and judged “the world’s most cited climatologist” by the journal of the Institute of British Geographers.
In contrast to this Who’s Who of the scientific world, the list of top global-warming scientists falls far short. No scientist has been awarded a Nobel Prize in a science field for his work on global warming because no piece of science in the field has achieved a major scientific breakthrough………………
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/09/16/lawrence-solomon-warmed-right-over/
When 97% of climate scientists (and every major scientific orgainzation in the US) think there is a very good chance that climate change will cause serious problems, I’ll listen to them, particluarly since the science is so straightforward and easy to understand.
The sclence (primarily physics) of global warming from CO2 has been around for so long (well over a hundred years) that no breakthrough is needed to understand what’s going on, ergo no Nobel prize expected. I would expect a nobel prize to be awarded to any scientist who could prove that the warming from CO2 will not be significant.
From 150 million years ago to 65 million years ago, CO2 levels decreased by 1000 ppm. During that same period, temperatures rose by 7 degrees Centigrade.
There are some obsessed with the supposed increase of 280 ppm to 392ppm of CO2 and I hope that this information will help Enviro to sleep better at nights.
This, I hope, will put this into some kind of a perspective that makes one understand just how insignificant this increase is.
A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large
kitchen sink.
A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There
are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons
per gallon.
Some other things that are one part per million are…
One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
One inch in 16 miles
About one minute in two years
One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from
Cleveland to San Francisco.
One penny in $10,000.
I know that you understand that these 112 additional ppm are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn’t it be a task to be told to sort out the 392 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000.
At 392 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
Not a good anology. Just look at SCIENCE as to WHY CO2 is such an important greenhouse gas. The science has been known for over a hundred years.
See http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract (below) – anyone who could show otherwise would certainly get a Nobel prize! Do you know any climate scientists who disagree with this article?
Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature
Andrew A. Lacis*,
Gavin A. Schmidt,
David Rind and
Reto A. Ruedy
Abstract
Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.
Here’s a link with a table of “Professional Societies and Major Relevant Research Institutions on whether humanity is driving climate change”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/a-siegel/climate-change-science-_b_1290259.html?ref=science
I’d need some really good reasons not to agree with all of these organizations.
First of all, the 97% claim of scientists is completely bogus. This is a fictitous number (as it is applied) based on a study of less than 100 resonses to questions that most skeptics would have answered affirmatively.
The overall feedback mechanisms of the climate in response to C02 forcings is not at all well understood. To think that it is shows a complete lack of understanding of the current state of the science. It is amazing to me, how many of the CAGW proponents, do not even understand the argument. No one with any knowledge denies that C02 causes some warming and that mankind has an impact (albeit small) on the climate. The whole issue is about if possitive feedbacks magnifying the impact of C02. There is no good evidence for the IPCC claims of roughly 3x magnification. Finally, even if one were to buy the whole CAGW argument, the correct action to take should be widely debated. A simple reading of the Economics analysis shows major disagreement in to how best to mitigate AGW impacts.
To simply parrot the CAGW line shows a lack of intellectual curiosity and laziness. Anyone who truly believes this nonsense, yet has not taken the time to study both sides of the argument is either gullible or lazy. Time to bookmark a couple sites aside from realclimate and skeptical science people……
What do you think the lower bound is for climate sensitivity? The upper bound? What do you think the “probability distribution function” is for climate sensitivity? To back up your claim, can you provide one or more links?
Bob –
We may actually be on the same page. Let me try to summarize the climate change debate:
Settled Facts
1. The average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere has increased about .8 degrees C since 1850.
2. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280 ppm (1750) to 393 ppm (2011), primarily from the burning of fossil fuels
3. A significant part of the temperature increase has been caused by CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels
Debate topics
4. If we continue burning fossil fuels at the current rate, what will be the expected temperature increase by 2050 from pre-industrial times? (%probability for 4 degrees C)
5. What are expected climatic impacts for different amounts of warming?
6. How much acidification can the oceans take without seriously compromising the oceanic food chain?
7. What is the relationship between temperature and sea level? (ice ages, 400 feet lower, ice-free planet, 200 feet higher)
8. How much can the sea level rise without dramatically affecting coastal communities?
9. What is a dangerous level of warming?
10. Future temperatures cannot be forecast with great accuracy – how confident do we need to be when setting policies that try to keep temperatures from exceeding a dangerous level? (e.g., do we want to feel 90% confident that our policies will keep temperatures form rising above dangerous levels?)
11. What will be the cost of implementing those policies?
12. What will be the cost of not implementing those policies?
13. What should we do?
So how do reasonable people try to reach a consensus on these topics?
Here’s just one tiny cherry-picked email, in case you couldn’t find access to them.
Hi Keith,
What is your take on the Vagonov et al. paper concerning the influence of snowfall and melt timing on tree growth in Siberia? Frankly, I can’t believe it was published as is. It is amazinglly thin on details. Isn’t Sob the same site as your Polar Urals site? If so, why is the Sob response window so radically shorter then the ones you identified in your Nature paper for both density and ring width? I notice that they used Berezovo instead of Salekhard, which is much closer according to the map. Is that
because daily data were only available for the Berezovo? Also, there is no evidence for a decline or loss of temperature response in your data in the post-1950s (I assume that you didn’t apply a bodge here). This fully contradicts their claims, although I do admit that such an effect might be happening in some places.
Cheers,
Ed
http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/30/muir-russell-and-the-briffa-bodge/
Looks like scientists discussing issues, just as you’d expect them to do!
Jose –
You need to check your facts better – Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes. (http://skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm)
And of course the fossil fuel industry wants you to think the vindiciation of the CRU was a cover up – that’s just a continuation of their dis-information campaign.
Enviro: Are you honestly implying that the “Scientist” at Skeptical Science offer up facts? Then you want to depute such people as Christy, Singer, John Coleman, , meteorologist Joesph D’Aleo and these folks:
2012 Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Glenn Tamblyn: Glenn studied Mechanical Engineering at Melbourne University.
Andy Skuce originally came from the UK but now lives on the West Coast of Canada. He chose to study geology, mainly because he was a keen rock climber, and went on to get a postgraduate degree in geophysics.
Robert Way: Robert is an MSc student studying at Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Daniel Bailey: Daniel completed science degrees in Earth Science, Cartography and Remote Sensing at Central Michigan University in the United States. After graduating, he took employment with the US Department of Defense in Washington, DC, for many years. Daniel is currently employed in the pharmaceutical industry, where he is much happier. No doubt due to the meds.
Doug Mackie: In the 70’s I had a dinosaur book that included a Keeling curve as part of the inevitable ‘what happened discussion’. (This was before Alvarez). Even before I could spell exponential I still wondered what the Keeling curve would mean for me when I grew up. When I began my PhD I found out.
Rob Painting: Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years. A long-time reader of Skeptical Science and now contributor.
Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor’s Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master’s Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010.
John Cook: John is the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He originally studied physics at the University of Queensland.
Riccardo :Graduated in physics, I got my PhD at the University of Catania (Italy). As an experimental material scientist I spend my working hours mainly in a lab torturing some material and trying to convince it to behave as I wish. Being a long time sailor, I needed to know at least the basics of meteorology. http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php
What facts on skeptical science do you think are not facts? Can you provide links that show the facts are wrong? No obfuscating – just facts.
I’m certainly not going to waste my time going through a bunch of nonsense put out by some group on the same level as Peter Gleick. The point is, who cares about a trace gas that makes up .036-8% of the atmosphere and is 1&1/2 times heavier than air? I know from experience that there is about 50% of the O2 that is available at sea level at 17,770 feet; so, a question for you, Enviro . How much C02 is there at this altitude?
ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2
http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/169/2009-01-03/ppm-co2-altitude-and-mass-co2-atmosphere-8520-metres-beyond-which-there-practic
Who cares how CO2 varies by altitude? EVERY scientists KNOWS that CO2 IS linked to warming – it’s simply physics!
See
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/10/14/climate-why-co2-is-the-control-knob-for-global-climate-change/
which summarizes
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract
“Sea level has been plummeting for four years, and is lower than it was in 2003 when EU’s Envisat satellite was launched. This is solid proof that Greenland and Antarctica are melting down at unprecedented rates and flooding the oceans with negative water.
John Cook says that the four year decline is due to rain in Australia which started in 2011.”
http://www.real-science.com/proof-ice-sheets-melting
Is that what you also think, Enviro?
“About John Cook
Lastly, for those wondering about who runs Skeptical Science, the website is maintained by John Cook. I studied physics at the University of Queensland but currently, I’m not a professional scientist – I run this website as a layman.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Newcomers-Start-Here.html
It would appear Enviro, that your source for all things pertaining to your scam, anthropogenic warming, is headed up by some one who shares the same amount of scientific qualifications as Al Gore and that amounts to none, zero. That you embarrass your self by continually referencing this site is evident from what you post.
If you search the web, you wlll find lots of sites with the following quote:
‘Water flows downhill, and the extra rain will eventually find its way back to the sea. When it does, global sea level will rise again. ‘We’re heating up the planet, and in the end that means more sea level rise’
For example, see
http://news.discovery.com/earth/rain-falls-sea-falls-111006.html
When reviewing CLIMATE TRENDS, you need to look at DECADES, not YEARS
Enviro: You can see how open and mature your favorite source of information, skepticalscience.com is with someone that knows what they are talking about, such as Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
Roger A. Pielke Sr.
Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado in Boulder
Professor Emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
B.A., Mathematics, Towson State College, 1968
M.S., Ph.D., Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, 1969, 1973
He is currently a Senior Research Scientist in CIRES and a Senior Research Associate at the University of Colorado-Boulder in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (ATOC) at the University of Colorado in Boulder (November 2005 -present). He is also an Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University and has a five-year appointment (April 2007 – March 2012) on the Graduate Faculty of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana.
My Interactions With Skeptical Science – A Failed Attempt (So Far) For Constructive Dialog
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/my-interactions-with-skeptical-science-a-failed-attempt-so-far-for-constructive-dialog/
1. I’ll stick w Skeptical Science, AS THE END OF YOUR LINK STATES:
10-Roger on that. The inescapable conclusion one is forced to draw is that Dr. Pielke under no circumstances will admit to having been wrong. Thus, he cedes the Field of Truth to Skeptical Science.
2. Don’t shoot the messenger – prove that is message is wrong
2. Climate science is evolving, so there will be modifications around the edges
3. The quote below was from NASA (I’ll stick with the experts)
‘Water flows downhill, and the extra rain will eventually find its way back to the sea. When it does, global sea level will rise again. ‘We’re heating up the planet, and in the end that means more sea level rise’
Enrviro
As usual the parameters are twisted on volcanoes to change the results.
A volcano can spew CO2 for thousands of years. The article written by scientists who like to twist the facts to qualify for government grants take the supposed peak of human kind and compare it to a volcano that was probably relatively dormant when they calculated the value.
The following is from http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually
This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.
Can you provide a link to a web site that supports your contention?
Just the facts please.
Thanks!
Also the fact that atmospheric CO₂was constant at 280 ± 5 ppm for all of the last 10,000 years up until the beginning of the Industrial Revolution means that volcanic CO₂emissions are naturally balanced by CO₂sinks (mainly sequestration in ocean sediments). Even in periods of the geological past when there were long-term trends in atmospheric CO₂they were about 20,000 times slower than the current extremely rapid 2ppm per year caused by fossil fuel combustion, cement manufacture and land use changes.
Enviro seems unaware of these facts.
“Volcanoes are also creative forces. The Earth’s first oceans and atmosphere formed from the gases given off by volcanoes. In turn, oceans and an atmosphere created the environment that made life possible on our planet. Volcanoes have also shaped the Earth’s landscape. Many of our mountains, islands, and plains have been built by volcanic eruptions.”
http://www.ussartf.org/volcanoes.htm
“Outgassing
Outgassing of volcanoes and mid-ocean ridges is the largest source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, releasing carbon dioxide from deep within the Earth that had been trapped there since the planet’s creation. CO2 is released from subduction zones through metamorphism of carbonate rocks subducting with the ocean crust. Not all of this CO2 enters the atmosphere. Some of it dissolves in the oceans and some remains in biomass of organisms.”
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Carbon_cycle
I know those facts. But what is relevant is the YEARLY AVERAGE of CO2 from volcanoes vs the YEARLY AVERAGE of CO2 from buring fossil fuels. I repeat “Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.” Please do not “arm wave” – just provide facts (in this case, actual numbers) that support your position.
– Professor Steven G. Horwitz, writing in late September 2008, in a piece entitled An Open Letter to my Friends on the Left.
I know, my friends, that you are concerned about corporate power. So am I. So are many of my free-market economist colleagues. We simply believe, and we think history is on our side, that the best check against corporate power is the competitive marketplace and the power of the consumer dollar (framed, of course, by legal prohibitions on force and fraud). Competition plays mean, nasty corporations off against each other in a contest to serve us. Yes, they still have power, but its negative effects are lessened. It is when corporations can use the state to rig the rules in their favor that the negative effects of their power become magnified, precisely because it has the force of the state behind it. The current mess shows this as well as anything ever has, once you realize just what a large role the state played. If you really want to reduce the power of corporations, don’t give them access to the state by expanding the state’s regulatory powers.
Corporations do really well they pollute freely. Do you want your water poisoned? Do you want pesticides in your food? Do you want safe drugs? Some regulation is obviously needed.
Global Warming Has Nothing to Do With Pollution. Global Warming Has Nothing to Do With Pollution.Global Warming Has Nothing to Do With Pollution.Global Warming Has Nothing to Do With Pollution.Global Warming Has Nothing to Do With Pollution.Global Warming Has Nothing to Do With Pollution.
The Fraud has Misappropriated Uncountable Money Resources to a problem that Does Not Exist. Meanwhile my rivers and lakes are nearly Unusable!!!!
But go ahead, let more be squandered!!!!!
If you think of CO2 as a pollutant, global warming IS caused by pollution.
Kate –
Please read the followiing from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/
Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong March 22, 2012 William D. Nordhaus
The sixteen scientists next attack the idea of CO2 as a pollutant. They write: “The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant.” By this they presumably mean that CO2 is not by itself toxic to humans or other organisms within the range of concentrations that we are likely to encounter, and indeed higher CO2 concentrations may be beneficial.
However, this is not the meaning of pollution under US law or in standard economics. The US Clean Air Act defined an air pollutant as “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive…substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.” In a 2007 decision on this question, the Supreme Court ruled clearly on the question: “Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt ‘physical [and] chemical…substance[s] which [are] emitted into…the ambient air.’ …Greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of ‘air pollutant.’”6
In economics, a pollutant is a form of negative externality—that is, a byproduct of economic activity that causes damages to innocent bystanders. The question here is whether emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will cause net damages, now and in the future. This question has been studied extensively. The most recent thorough survey by the leading scholar in this field, Richard Tol, finds a wide range of damages, particularly if warming is greater than 2 degrees Centigrade.7 Major areas of concern are sea-level rise, more intense hurricanes, losses of species and ecosystems, acidification of the oceans, as well as threats to the natural and cultural heritage of the planet.
In short, the contention that CO2 is not a pollutant is a rhetorical device and is not supported by US law or by economic theory or studies.
Enviro – you are not familiar with the points below. You will be more comfortable just staying over at huff po where everyone else repeats your stuff. You can’t back anything up. All you do is deflect…….and that fossil fuel industry line is so tired and worn. Actually almost every oil/gas corp is counting on you and yours to make more money by removing the competition. Go ahead, help them out.
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/pseudo-critical-thinking-in-the-educational-establishment/504
It might be helpful to remember that all critical thinking abilities have three parts: a process, an object, and a standard. Here are various critical thinking abilities which can serve as examples. As you read them see if you can identify the intellectual standard in each.
the ability to evaluate information for its relevance
the ability to accurately identify assumptions
the ability to construct plausible inferences
the ability to identify relevant points of view
the ability to distinguish significant from insignificant information
As I found out, on studying the science, climatologists have been misleading us. This includes the long list you sent us to from huff po. They all have hopes for money (from your pocket.)
This is the fight that will define the twenty-first century as either a time when mankind advances due to honest enterprise, quality science, and technical achievement…or we are subjugated by government micro-regulation from manipulative control freaks based on false and slanted data from grant recipients with no scruples.
I’m done here. When you just keep quoting huff po and scepticalscience you tell me everything I need to know. Your intellectual laziness isn’t any fun at all.
Too bad you beleive science fiction rather than science fact. I keep trying so show you facts and all you do is wave your arms and say I’m wrong, never providing me w any scientific facts to back your arm waving. Do you know of a Web site that purports to debunk the science on SketicalScience.com? I suppose you think the “science” in Michael Crighton’s “State of Fear” was legit.
That’s great link! Too bad you’re not following their advice. I provide links to facts to support my ideas. You just huff and puff and ignore the facts. The following cartoon shows where the moneyed interests are:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/climateinfographic.jpg
Let’s look at CO2 and temperature historically:
………………Mean Surface Temp C………Mean CO2 ppm
Carboniferous……….14…………………………800
Permian………………16…………………………900
Triassic………………17………………………..1750
Jurassic………………16.5……………………..1950
Cretaceous………….18………………………..1700
Paleogene……………18…………………………500
Carboniferous……….14…………………………800……………..14…………………………280
The first thing one notices is how little correlation CO2 has with temperature –
………………Mean Surface Temp C………Mean CO2 ppm
Carboniferous……………14…………………………800
Neogene………………….14…………………………280
………………Mean Surface Temp C………Mean CO2 ppm
Cretaceous…………….18………………………1700
Paleogene………………18……………………….500
………………Mean Surface Temp C………Mean CO2 ppm
Permian…………………16………………………..900
Jurassic…………………16.5…………………….1950
Coincidentally every lab experiment every done trying to correlate “warming” with CO2 has failed! If you can show me some empirical test results I would be glad to look at them – NOTE not computer models or explanations – test results. Everyone is well aware of IR radiation on CO2 and that CO2 infused atmospheres cool slower but to date there has not been one reproducible experiment that links CO2 to warming in the atmosphere – a rather inconvenient fact wouldn’t you say?
Although numbers vary greatly the average global warming projection says that the earth’s temperature will rise 3.5C by 2100. (Of course all of the models exclude the last ten years because that drives the numbers way down, but will ignore that.) This assumes that the CO2 will be around 755 ppm. Using the EXACT same model we can go back historically and match what the temperatures should have been – that is if the MODEL is correct and that CO2 is the driving force of temperature.
Backdating a model is a common technique to checks is accuracy if we backdate the IPCC average model for AGW these are the results
………………………..Model Temp C……… .ACTUAL Temp C…………Error
Carboniferous………………17.6…………………….14…………………..21%
Permian……………………..17.9…………………….16…………………..11%
Triassic………………………25………………………17…………………..32%
Jurassic………………………26.7……………………16.5…………………38%
Cretaceous………………….24.3……………………18……………………26%
Paleogene……………………14.1……………………18……………………28%
Neogene………………………13.1…………………..14…………………….7%
This is an embarrassment to any scientist to use a model that can’t be back tested and then rely on it for future predictions. This model averaged 5 degrees Celsius of error.
Face it Enviro, if you and the other delusional people that push anthropogenic global warming don’t have carbon dioxide you have nothing and the chance for the control factor, the revenue factor is gone and then maybe science can get back to important work.
“The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it” — H L Mencken
Look at the relationship between temperature and CO2 in the last 450,000 years – see FIGURE 3 in http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Storms/
FIGURE 3. Temperature change, atmospheric carbon dioxide amount,
and sea level as a function of time for the past 425,000 years.
The horizontal axis shows time in thousands of years before present.
Time zero [“present” refers to the date 1750, just before the
industrial revolution. (Figure from Hansen et al., “Target Atmospheric
CO2” See sources for chapter 8. For the original data, see sources for
chapter 3.)
Looks to me lke CO2 and Temperature correlate VERY well.
Where do you get “there has not been one reproducible experiment that links CO2 to warming in the atmosphere”? EVERY scientists KNOWS that CO2 IS linked to warming – it’s simply physics!
See
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/10/14/climate-why-co2-is-the-control-knob-for-global-climate-change/
which summarizes
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract
A
Doug –
I suggest you look at the following link and review the video
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/a-co2-warning-etched-in-stone-and-sedimen/
It looks like the insurnace industry believes the climate change “hoax”, so the number of “conspirators” continues to grow (see http://www.insurancenetworking.com/news/insurance-climate-change-risk-ceres-30007-1.html)
Climate Change: Insurers Confirm Growing Risks, Costs
Stakeholders from the insurance industry met with members of the U.S. Senate to acknowledge the role global warming plays in extreme weather-related losses, and to issue a call for action.
Insurance Networking News, March 2, 2012
Pat Speer
The politics of global warming have typically involved much debate as to the role climate change plays in growing weather-related risk. Yesterday, however, at a Capital Hill a press conference on the cost of climate change, debate was not on the agenda. Pointing to a year of history-making, $1 billion-plus natural disasters, representatives of Tier 1 insurance companies took a definitive stance with members of the U.S. Senate to confirm that costs to taxpayers and businesses from extreme weather will continue to soar because of climate change.
Representatives from The Reinsurance Association of America, Swiss Re and Willis Re and Ceres, a nonprofit organization that leads a national coalition of investors, environmental organizations and other public interest groups working with companies to address a variety of sustainability challenges, joined Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) yesterday to discuss the growing financial impact of global warming.
“From our industry’s perspective, the footprints of climate change are around us and the trend of increasing damage to property and threat to lives is clear,” said Franklin Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America. “We need a national policy related to climate and weather.”
etc.
Enviro
Regarding
‘Water flows downhill, and the extra rain will eventually find its way back to the sea. When it does, global sea level will rise again. ‘We’re heating up the planet, and in the end that means more sea level rise’
Do any of the geniuses predicting world calamity know what equilibrium is?
Maybe there is a condition where water flows uphill from a condition called evaporation and on warmer planet there will be more water in the atmosphere causing the sea level to balance itself.
Houston used to think the Gulf of Mexico was rising but they found out they were sinking because they were pumping the ground water that was holding them up. They used GPS satellites to determine they were sinking instead of the Gulf rising and stopped pumping water from underneath the city.
There is an equilibrium of water on the Earth – some is lost to space and some comes from asteroids, but basically the amount does not change. The water is on land (liquid), in glaciers (solid), and in the ocean (liquid). As ocean water warms, sea level rises. As glaciers melt, the sea level rises. And glaciers (including Antarctica) have been melting faster than imagined 10 years ago. Sea levels have been rising an average of about 3.2 mm / year for at least 20 years. I don’t think any respected climate scientist expects the DECADAL average will change much in the next five years or so (at least not significantly in a negative direction).
if on a “warmer planet there will be more water in the atmosphere causing the sea level to balance itself.” then we’d really be in trouble – think of all the additional flooding that would cause! There WILL be more water in the atmosphere, bit it will certainly not lead to the sea level to stop rising (it will only lead to more rainfail and more flooding).
Do you have any links to respected sites that show anything other than a continued rise in sea level?
Another article that I suggest you read:
Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong March 22, 2012 William D. Nordhaus
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/
You might also look at the Web site for Shell:
http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/environment/climate_change/
Global population growth and economic development may double energy demand by 2050. All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of people’s needs. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2 emissions, governments and industry will need to work together. As Shell increases its gas and oil production to help meet growing demand, we believe the best way to help secure a sustainable energy future is by focusing on four main areas: natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency in our operations.
“How is it that Svensmark et al. could produce a graph like this one showing a clear correlation between cosmic rays and climate whereas RealClimate manage to produce one showing the exact opposite?”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/
Sorry folks, cosmic rays really are in charge
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/climate-physics-101/
I will answer that question, it is because Nigel Calder deals in real science and Real climate deals in untruths and conjecture and is therefore unusable as far as understanding anything about the climate.
I just saw on Australian broadcast that this year is the best production year ever in all of Australia for agriculture.
What about your climate change, enviro?
Look at http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html (see below)
There does appear to be a correlation between cosmic rays and mid-troposheric temperatures in the way they “move” together. But how do you account for the cosmic ray flux being almost constant but both the “ground” and mid-troposheric temperatures increasing? What is casusing the temperatures to increase?
————————————————————-
Tropospheric Temperature Change
Measurements of the Earth’s temperature taken by weather balloons (also known as radiosondes) and satellites from the surface to 5-8 miles into the atmosphere – the layer called the troposphere – also reveal warming trends. According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center:
For the period 1958-2006, temperatures measured by weather balloons warmed at a rate of 0.22°F per decade near the surface and 0.27°F per decade in the mid-troposphere. The 2006 global mid-troposphere temperatures were 1.01°F above the 1971-2000 average, the third warmest on record.
For the period beginning in 1979, when satellite measurements of troposphere temperatures began, various satellite data sets for the mid-troposphere showed similar rates of warming — ranging from 0.09°F per decade to 0.34°F per decade, depending on the method of analysis.
Enviro said this: “Where do you get “there has not been one reproducible experiment that links CO2 to warming in the atmosphere”? EVERY scientists KNOWS that CO2 IS linked to warming – it’s simply physics!” Did you show what information I asked for? NO and you can not. That these SCIENTEST do not agree with you is obvious.
“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.
“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” — Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.
I know that Dr. Robert B. Laughlin has a much better understanding of this topic than you could ever hope to acquire from where ever you get your delusional information.
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
I know that these people are more knowledgeable regarding this subject that a fiction writer such as yourself is; therefore, it is people like this that I get my information from.
Bert Rutan knows so much more about this topic than you ever will. This may be one of the only thing that “time” has ever been right about.
“Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” — Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004” by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.”
For “EVERY scientists KNOWS that CO2 IS linked to warming – it’s simply physics!” look at this link:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/radiative-physics-yes-co2-does-create-warming/
The debate should be about the probabilities of various amounts of warming, the amount of risks that we’re willing to take, and the probable costs of both inaction and action.
Re” The Earth will heal itself —“ sure it will! And re “Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…”. Of course it does! But so what? Do you want your grandchildren living on a planet where the temperature is ten degrees higher and the seas 40 feet higher? How many people will that kind of planet support?
This is the main nugget of logic that I got from the site you referred me to:
“Jeff, I think that you believe that CO2 causes warming because you want to believe that. Your belief is faith-based, because it certainly isn’t fact-based – not as you have presented it
This post is disappointing, I was hoping you could do better than this.”
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/radiative-physics-yes-co2-does-create-warming/
Where is your curiosity? Can you “Google”? Can you think for yourself? Why are you swayed by non-experts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/: “Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived “forcing” of climate change. ”
Can you find a link to a Web page for a reputable scienfic organization that refutes the science in http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/radiative-physics-yes-co2-does-create-warming/?
What additional proof do you need?
Your projection of the type of planet that people will find them selves on in the future is based on what? IPCC models that have all been wrong, Some report in “Time Magazine” or how about some nonsense that The AP’s good old Seth Borenstein who totally editorialize their “science” reporting with such nonsense as this:
“Nature is pummeling the United States this year with extremes. Unprecedented triple-digit heat and devastating drought. Deadly tornadoes leveling towns. Massive rivers overflowing. A billion-dollar blizzard. And now, unusual hurricane-caused flooding in Vermont.”
In June, 1934 the entire country had triple digit heat. We didn’t come anywhere close to that this summer.
Severe drought in 1934 covered 80% of the country, compared with 25% in 2011
Flooding in 1927 was worse. Are these reporters like Seth Borenstein too lazy or too dumb to do any research?
What kind of life do you think planet earth’s people will have if there was no fossil fuels used? Do you not keep up this issue enough to know that in the past four years the sea level has Dropped:
“Al Gore Reaches A Tipping Point
Not his weight …..
Sea level has been falling for four years. Arctic sea ice is normal. Antarctic sea ice is normal. Temperatures are below the 30 year mean, and haven’t risen for 15 years.
So now they move on to ocean acidification ….
http://www.real-science.com/al-gore-reaches-tipping-point
“Time Magazine IQ Dropping At The Highest Rate In The Last 300 Million Years
Researchers already know that the seas are becoming more acidic, thanks largely to the increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon. (Much of the carbon in the air is absorbed by the oceans—think of the fizz in a soda can—which over time makes them more acidic.) Over the last hundred years, the ocean pH—which measures the relative acidity of a liquid—has fallen by 0.1 unit to 8.1 That may not sound like much, but according to a new study published in Science, it’s all but unprecedented.
Ocean Acidification Is Now Almost Certainly Occurring Faster Than It Has for at Least 300 Million Years | Ecocentric | TIME.com
What utter stupidity. Ocean pH varies by a much larger amount than that from month to month, and is regularly lower than 7.8. Monterrey Bay shows no trend in pH
Alarmists appear to be incapable of ever telling the truth about anything.”
http://www.real-science.com/time-magazine-iq-dropping-highest-rate-300
“Greenland Almost Completely Locked In By Ice”
N_daily_extent.png (420×500)
Only a tiny section of SW Greenland remains navigable.
http://www.real-science.com/greenland-completely-locked-ice>
Doug –
You are being misled by misinformation and disinformation. Not one of your contentions meets a “relevancy” test. At what point will you start thinking for yourself and start distrusting your sources? Googling is really easy!
“Your projection of the type of planet that people will find themselves on in the future is based on what” – It’s based on the fact that rising levels of CO2 will increase the temperature of the earth (by how much is a good topic for debating – see this on the MIT Web site – http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble/ The Greenhouse Gamble™ wheels were developed by the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change to better convey uncertainty in climate change prediction. The roulette-style spinning wheels depict the estimated probability, or likelihood, of potential temperature change (global average surface temperature) over the next 100 years. The face of each wheel is divided into colored slices, with the size of each slice representing the estimated probability of the temperature change in the year 2100 falling within that range.
The Greenhouse Gamble wheel on the left is the “no policy” or reference case, in which it is assumed no action is taken to try to curb the global emissions of greenhouse gases. The median value of the “no policy” wheel, or the temperature at which there is a 50% chance of falling above or below that level (even odds) is 5.2 °C.
The Greenhouse Gamble wheel on the right is the “with policy” case, which assumes that policies are enacted to limit cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases over the century to 4.2 trillion metric tons, measured in CO2-equivalent. The median warming level (even odds) is 2.3 °C.) RELEVANT information, please!
“Sea level has been falling for four years”. So what? Sea levels have been rising an average of about 3.2 mm / year for at least 20 years. I don’t think any respected climate scientist expects the DECADAL average will change much in the next five years or so (at least not significantly in a negative direction). Do you have any links to respected sites that show anything other than a continued rise in sea level? RELEVANT information, please!
“Arctic sea ice is normal.” So what? Of course it’s “normal” this time of year – it’s WINTER. There are three major “facts” to consider for Arctic sea ice – minimum extent in the SUMMER, volume of ice in the SUMMER, and amount of multi-year ice. All of these numbers are decreasing (see http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html, plus try Googling for more info). RELEVANT information, please!
“Antarctic sea ice is normal”. So what? See http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/grace20120208bot.html “Greenland, Antarctica and Peripheral Glaciers and Ice Caps:
Average yearly change in mass, in centimeters of water, during 2003-2010, as measured by NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites, for just Greenland and Antarctica and their peripheral glaciers and ice caps. There are enormous ice loss rates over substantial regions of those two ice sheets. Blue represents ice mass loss, while red represents ice mass gain. RELEVANT information, please!
“Temperatures are below the 30 year mean”. So what? Of course there is somewhere on earth where this is true. Can you provide a link that supports your contention for the planet as a whole? RELEVANT information, please!
“Temperatures haven’t risen for 15 years”. So what”. “That statement, to put it bluntly, is dead wrong. It relies on blatantly misinterpreting long term trends, instead wearing blinders and only looking at year-to-year variations in temperature.” Relevant facts: (1) temperatures variation is only relevant over relatively long periods of time – like 30 years of so, (2) nine of the ten hottest years on record all occurred since the year 2000.” (3) Over 90% of the warming has been going into the oceans, and (4) the earth is still in an “energy imbalance mode” where we are absorbing significantly more energy than we are emitting. See also http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/ RELEVANT information, please!
“Greenland Almost Completely Locked In By Ice” – so what? Greenland ice sheets melting faster than predicted
http://www.theworld.org/2011/05/greenland-ice-sheets-melting/. Also see “Antarctica” above – http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/grace20120208bot.html RELEVANT information, please!
“Ocean pH varies by a much larger amount than that from month to month, and is regularly lower than 7.8. Monterrey Bay shows no trend in pH”. So what? How about reading some articles on the affects of the pH change:
“This study has some good news and some bad news for corals,” said coauthor Adina Paytan, a research professor in the Institute of Marine Sciences at UC Santa Cruz. “The good news is that some species of corals are able to calcify and grow at very low pH. The bad news is that these are not the ones that build the framework of the coral reefs. So if this is an indication of what will happen with future ocean acidification, the reefs will not be as we know them today.” (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111128132700.htm) RELEVANT information, please!
Who ever said that CO2 separated out of the air at lower elevations and just “stayed there”? Don’t you realize that it is in a constant cycle with ocean water? Also I think that you should know that the air will always have these percentages of specific gases in it at sea level. I know from experience that at 18,000 feet at Thorung La Pass (5,4165 M=17,769 FT) on the Annapurna trek the amount of O2 is 52% of what one finds at sea level and the amount of CO2, from the CRC 85th edition 2004-2005 handbook on physics and chemistry is practically zero .
This applies to your ocean temperature and the acidity of the oceans, Enviro .
It would be simple and probably nice if the earth’s climate and ocean actions could be explained with something as simple as a trace gas, carbon dioxide, that makes up .035-8% of the atmosphere and 15.1% of the ocean’s makeup but only simple people could believe such a thing. They should know just how dynamic and complex the climate is and all of the factors that affect it before making such a flawed judgment. Here are some sites to look into, if you care to. The biggest flows out of the atmosphere are photosynthesis on land and CO2 uptake by cold ocean water. These are about 30 times and 40 times respectively the flow of carbon into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning. What follows also addresses the utterly insane allegation that CO2 is increasing the acidity of the oceans.
“The pycnocline (meaning rapid change of density) separates the surface layer of the ocean from the deep ocean. Deep ocean water has a temperature of about 3 degrees Celsius and a salinity measuring about 34-35 psu.” (What does all of this do to the ocean’s pH? Where and what depth are your pH observations taken from?)
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/deep_ocean.html
“The interaction between water temperature and salinity effects density and density determines thermohaline circulation, or the global conveyor belt. The global conveyor belt is a global-scale circulation process that occurs over a century-long time scale. Water sinks in the North Atlantic, traveling south around Africa, rising in the Indian Ocean or further on in the Pacific, then returning toward the Atlantic on the surface only to sink again in the North Atlantic starting the cycle again.” (Again, your narrow time span makes your worries groundless if you are looking at 20-30 years and who & where and at what depths were these readings taken regarding PH? Also NASA seems to want to compress this circulation time span into centuries when most believe it is at least a thousand year cycle)
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-water-cycle/
“As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit. It represents in a simple way how ocean currents carry warm surface waters from the equator toward the poles and moderate global climate.” [The Global Conveyer Belt has suddenly stopped for several speculated reason in the past and caused dramatic and rapid climate changes always to the cold side; therefore, warm is preferable to cold any day]
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-water-cycle/
“As water temperature increases, the increased mobility of gas molecules make them escape from the water, thereby reducing the amount of gas dissolved. [Could this be why warming forces the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by hundreds years & not what the alarmist want one to believe that it is the CO2 that is causing the warming?]
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/seawater.htm
“It is thought that the carbon dioxide in the sea exists in equilibrium with that of exposed rock and bottom sediment containing limestone CaCO3 (or sea shells for that matter). In other words, that the element calcium exists in equilibrium with CO3. But the concentration of Ca (411ppm) is 10.4 mmol/l and that of all CO2 species (90ppm) 2.05 mmol/l, of which CO3 is about 6%, thus 0.12 mmol/l. Thus the sea has a vast oversupply of calcium. It is difficult therefore to accept that decalcification could be a problem as CO3 increases. To the contrary, it should be of benefit to calcifying organisms. Thus the more CO2, the more limestone is deposited. This has also been borne out by measurements (Budyko 1977).” [maybe, just maybe as with so many things in nature, this is a self-regulating factor that has been taking care of the ocean’s pH without humans having one thing to do with it]
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm
You and your “scientist” views on pH is pointless since where is the base line since the pH scale didn’t exist before the concept of p[H] was first introduced by Danish chemist Søren Peder Lauritz Sørensen at the Carlsberg Laboratory in 1909?
SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore
Climate Depot Exclusive: 321-page ‘Consensus Buster’ Report set to further chill UN Climate Summit in Cancun
The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore
So if all these scientists think there is not a problem, why is it that almost all statements from leading scientific organzations, the Saudi Oil minister, and Shell Oil state that climate change is a problem and that action needs to be taken? Why is there not even ONE leading scientific organzation that has issued a statement saying that we don’t need to worry? How many scientists denied that cigarette smoke was not a problem well after it had been scientifically established?
Enviro needs to deal with these questions before moving on to the Saudi oil minister, who has as much scientific background on this subject as Al Gore; therefore, some one we all need to listen to, right Envio.
– mention Al Gores tobacco farm.
– ask why RK Pachauri is still a director of GloriOil.
– bring up how Shell and BP founded CRU in 1972.
– ask for the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing.
Any answers, Enviro?
“To be sure, Al-Naimi’s “over-arching message,” as he put it, was to reassure his audience that “Saudi Arabia will continue to be a stable supplier of crude oil to world markets for many decades.”
He left no one in his audience in doubt that oil is a necessity of modern life. “The fact remains that oil will continue to play a major role in the overall energy mix for many decades,” he said. “It is clear that a petroleum-free transportation system is decades away. And if you look at the vast range of products derived from crude oil, everything from lubricants to asphalt, medicines to plastics, it is clear petroleum is here to stay.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/01/ali_al_naimi_speech/
What kind of a wandering, delusional mind would now want to interject smoking into this discussion?
Again “Why is there not even ONE leading scientific organzation that has issued a statement saying that we don’t need to worry about climate change? ”
Re Shell -“To be sure, Al-Naimi’s “over-arching message,” as he put it, was to reassure his audience that “Saudi Arabia will continue to be a stable supplier of crude oil to world markets for many decades ” – so what? What does that have to do with “the price of tea in China”? He also said “Global warming ‘among humanity’s most pressing concerns'”, which is what we are discussing here. Do you disagree with him?
As “for the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing” – please read http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/radiative-physics-yes-co2-does-create-warming/ (I’ve provided the link before – why are you ignoring it?)
I mentioned “How many scientists denied that cigarette smoke was not a problem well after it had been scientifically established?” becuase the same “denial machine” is at work on climate change – please read “The Merchants of Doubt”
When asking questions, please ask RELAVENT questions, like those dealing with the science of climate change.
Enviro: I had LOOKED into the link that you supplied and I allow another person that examined it answer, again, for me. What part of this do you not understand? Answer: anything that does not coincide with my delusional views of anthropogenic global warming.
“Brego said
April 19, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Once again Jeff, you insist upon making the same mistakes and are refusing to recognize that the troposphere contains great abundances of water in all three of it’s phases; vapor, liquid and ice. The absorption spectrum for the three phases of water are very different. The comparative absorption spectral diagram that you posted is irrelevant because it also fails to take this into consideration.
Once again, the absorption spectrum for liquid water in the atmosphere:
http://i42.tinypic.com/54aes8.jpg
Note the location of the strongest absorption peak of liquid water and it’s unfortunate coincidence with the absorption peak for CO2, where liquid water absorbs 300+ times more intensely than CO2, not to mention water’s much greater abundance in the troposphere:
http://i44.tinypic.com/24zayi1.jpg
And what’s up with your figure 4, with an unknown provenance? I think I recognize that as a diagram the kid two blocks over from me put together for giggles, and yet you quote it as gospel? Why? Because you think that it confirms your preconceived notions?
Jeff, I think that you believe that CO2 causes warming because you want to believe that. Your belief is faith-based, because it certainly isn’t fact-based – not as you have presented it
This post is disappointing, I was hoping you could do better than this.”
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/radiative-physics-yes-co2-does-create-warming/
Enviro: Look at these sties provided above to get a true and, for that reason, different perspective of what you think you know about this topic.
Enviro: These folks below do not seem to hold your views on anthropogenic global warming and I do believe that they know much more about it than you ever will, given your irrational mind set.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people
come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and
scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning
PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only
are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do
not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a
researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous
University of Mexico
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have
little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds
dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a
professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the
University of Auckland, NZ.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand
that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” –
Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008
International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed
papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…
The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a
pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology,
which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos
of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more
than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every
scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a
political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations
walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of
Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan
So what? These people may know a lot more than I do, but they don’t know more than most climate scientists. I’m really amazed to see so much ignorance in people who claim to be scientists – some of those statements disregard the consensus views on climate change. I’ll stick with NAS and MIT.
I would hope Enviro, that you can put this together with the link regarding how CO2 becomes less and less to the point of being nonexistent at altitude in a column of air.
Now another FACT for you to consider. CO2 is one and one half times heavier than “air”. This point was sadly proven on Aug, 21, 1986 when Lake Nyor in Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO2 that spilled over the lip of the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles of the lake. “Carbon dioxide, being about 1.5 times as dense as air, caused the cloud to “hug” the ground and descend down the valleys where various villages were located. The mass was about 50 metres (164 ft) thick and it travelled downward at a rate of 20–50 kilometres (12–31 mi) per hour. For roughly 23 kilometres (14 mi) the cloud remained condensed and dangerous, suffocating many of the people sleeping in Nyos,Kam,Cha,andSubum.
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…
What’s your point? What happened to the CO2 at Lake Nyor? Did it stay on the ground for a several weeks or did it mix in the atmosphere? Do you have any links to sites that show that CO2 is not well-mixed int the atmosphere?
I will explain my point to you in a way that even you might be able understand. Air is made up of molecules. They are so light they float around you without sinking to the ground. There are basically two groups of molecules in the air, nitrogen and oxygen. The nitrogen takes up a huge portion of the air: 78%! That is, about 3/4 of the molecules causing the atmospheric pressure are tiny nitrogen molecules. Oxygen makes up 21% of the air. Combined, nitrogen and oxygen make up 99% of what is going into your nose, throat, and lungs at sea level. (Sea level is the key here, Enviro. You can find out for your self that at 18,000′ there is only about 53% of the 02 available that is at sea level. The link I presented you with, that you didn’t understand, explains what happens to CO2 in a column of air at various altitudes) All the other gases make up only 1% of the atmosphere and most of that is argon.
One would hope that Enviro understands this fact: The atmosphere is made up of 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, ( 99.03% of the atmosphere is made up of these two gases) .93% argon and .0001% neon, helium and krypton for constant components and .4% water vapor that constitutes 95% of what cause the green house affect and we had best not forget CO2 at .036% and the rest is made up of trace gases such as CH4,SO2,03 and NO, and NO2.? These trace gases are very important, H2O being the most important because it contributes 95% to the green house effect, and with out these gases the surface of the earth would too cool/cold to support life as we know it.
Relatively soon after carbon dioxide is released by man near ground level, it is removed from the atmosphere. Since carbon dioxide is heavier than air, carbon dioxide released by man near ground level sinks in air relatively quickly rather than rising up to the upper atmosphere to become a so-called greenhouse gas in the upper atmosphere. Since you could not on your own figure out what happened to the CO2 at Lake Nyor, don’t you assume that it mixed with the other gasses that make up the atmosphere and was in turn used by plants that are the basis for all life on earth. I gave this example about Lake Nyor to point out that CO2 is one and one half times heavier that “air” and you seem to not be able to grasp that FACT. Now a question for you: What have you ever been able to trap with a gas? Especially a gas that makes up .036% of the atmosphere and is 1 & 1/2 times heavier than that atmosphere.
Doug –
Please use your common sense! Re , if “Relatively soon after carbon dioxide is released by man near ground level, it is removed from the atmosphere” – why is the CO2 concentration now at 392 ppm and rising 2-3 ppm/year? CO2 has a “residency” time of over 100 years. Look at any diagram of the carbon cycle (e.g., http://genomicscience.energy.gov/). You will see that about 40% of man-made emissions stay in the atmosphere.
And did you look at http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/radiative-physics-yes-co2-does-create-warming/, which shows how “a gas that makes up .036% of the atmosphere and is 1 & 1/2 times heavier than that atmosphere.” is responsible for not only making our planet livable for humans but will also be the main reason our planet will get warmer as more CO2 enters the atmosphere?
Please, please, please, stop regurgitating irrelevant facts and show me a link to a statement by a climate scientist that contradicts my above two points.
Enviro tells me this: “And did you look at http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/radiative-physics-yes-co2-does-create-warming/, which shows how “a gas that makes up .036% of the atmosphere and is 1 & 1/2 times heavier than that atmosphere.” is responsible for not only making our planet livable for humans but will also be the main reason our planet will get warmer as more CO2 enters the atmosphere?
Please, please, please, stop regurgitating irrelevant facts and show me a link to a statement by a climate scientist that contradicts my above two points.”
My Lord, Enviro, how many times and different ways do I have to show you that I did look into the completely irrelevant site that you wasted my time looking into. You, above, did say one thing correct and that, while what I have stated is not irrelevant, they are FACTS. I issue these other Facts for your consideration and await you to make up something to answer the question.
Enviro–
Please use your common sense, use some logic, use some kind of a thought process to keep you from going over the edge on this scam that you seem to have bought into.
Enviro is obsessed with the supposed increase of 280 ppm to 392ppm of CO2 and I hope that this information will help Enviro to sleep better at nights.
This, I hope, will put this into some kind of a perspective that makes one understand just how insignificant this increase is.
A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large
kitchen sink.
A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There
are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons
per gallon.
Some other things that are one part per million are…
One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
One inch in 16 miles
About one minute in two years
One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from
Cleveland to San Francisco.
One penny in $10,000.
I know that you understand that these 112 additional ppm are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn’t it be a task to be told to sort out the 392 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000.
At 392 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
Enviro:
In most places where the water was reported to be rising, the fact was the cities have been sinking due to excessive ground water extraction. It can be proven with GPS monitoring.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-02/28/content_14707197.htm
Alarmed by the grave results of a geological survey that 46 cities in China are sinking due to the excessive pumping of groundwater, the central government recently kicked off construction of two surface subsidence monitoring networks focusing on the Yangtze River Delta and the North China plain, respectively.
http://www.greatdreams.com/cities.htm
Journal: Mexico City Sinking Into Depleted Aquifer
http://ag.arizona.edu/azwater/arroyo/062land.html
Subsidence and earth fissures are geological events that are accelerated by man through a long-term extraction of groundwater, and they represent a disruption of a natural equilibrium. Underlying groundwater is pumped and the land settles and subsides. Under certain circumstances fissures then develop.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/bangladesh-defence/151849-groundwater-loss-puts-city-risk.html
Dhaka is sinking over half an inch a year on average because of excessive extraction of groundwater and inadequate recharging of the vacuum it creates below the surface, found a recent study.
What’s your point? Look again at http://news.discovery.com/earth/rain-falls-sea-falls-111006.html to see where all the extra water on land is – it’s not confined to a few locations. Can you provide a link to a statement by a respected climate scientist that explains why he/she does not expect sea levels to continue to rise?
Enviro:
What science organization is there that doesn’t get government funding for spreading the climate doomsday message?
How about these:
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
The American Chemical Society
The American Geophysical Union
The American Institute of Physics
The Geological Society of America
The American Medical Association
The following cartoon shows where the moneyed interests are:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/climateinfographic.jpg
How about a link to ANY scientific organization that denies the that climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed? (The only one that I could find that was ambivalent on climate change is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists/Division of Professional Affairs: “In the last century, growth in human population has increased energy use. This has contributed additional carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases to the atmosphere. Although the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases, AAPG believes that expansion of scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate is important. ” – and they have a vested interest in “business as usual”!)
• Enviro; Please try to tell the truth, just once in awhile, please
• AAAS.ORG The American Association for the Advancement of Science
Where to Search for Funding
Are you seeking funding for research or training in a particular area? Now that GrantsNet has been retired, our staff has compiled a list of other places you can search for information on funding programs. Unfortunately, most of them require a subscription for access.
• Grants.gov – Grants.gov lists all current discretionary funding opportunities from 26 agencies of the United States government, including the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and many others — in other words, all the most important public funders of research in the United States.
• The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Extramural Research – The largest funder of biomedical research in the world, NIH funds research in just about every area that’s remotely related to human health and disease. This page includes extensive information about NIH grants, as well as a place to search NIH funding programs. NIH also has an advanced search page, which offers a wide range of search options.
• The National Science Foundation (NSF) – An independent federal agency, the U.S. National Science Foundation funds approximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted at America’s colleges and universities. This is the place to search for NSF funding programs.
• GRC – Run by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), the Grant Resource Center includes a database “customized to smaller institutions, and staff assistance,” according to one user. A paid institutional membership is required for access.
• IRIS – The Illinois Research Information Service is free for the University of Illinois (UI) community. Outside the UI system, a paid institutional subscription is needed for access.
• SPIN – Run by InfoEd International, SPIN (the Sponsored Programs Information Network) claims to be the most widely used funding opportunity database in the world. An institutional subscription is required for access.
• COS Funding Opportunities. Community of Science claims the “largest, most comprehensive database of available funding,” with 700 member institutions. Individuals can register free, but this won’t get you access to the funding database.
• ResearchResearch – Based in London, ResearchResearch provides an international option for people seeking research-funding programs. A paid subscription is required for access.
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/funding
So they get some government funding – so what? Unlike organizations funded by the fossil fuel lobby, they can write articles that reflect the science.
• Enviro; Please try to tell the truth, just once in awhile, please because you have exactly no credibility if you can not tell the truth about something as innocuous as this subject, shame on you.
American Geophysical Union – AGU Congressional Science Fellowship
https://researchfunding.duke.edu/detail.asp?OppID=11651
Federal Grants (Grants.gov)
Grants.gov allows organizations to electronically find and apply for more than $400 billion in Federal grants. Grants.gov is THE single access point for over 1000 grant programs offered by all Federal grant-making agencies.
https://researchfunding.duke.edu/Databases.asp
So they get some government funding – so what? Unlike organizations funded by the fossil fuel lobby, they can write articles that reflect the science.
How about a link to ANY scientific organization that denies the that climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed?
I wonder Enviro, if this surprises you? I’m not going to look into the other organizations on “you” list because they do not interest me and none of them interested you enough to find out the truth about them, same as the other nonsense that you have wasted our time with.
The Geological Society of America
GSA/ExxonMobil Awards
• Field Camp Scholar Award for undergraduate students to attend camp (apply by 16 March).
• Field Camp Excellence Award to help fund your geology field camp (apply by 16 March).
• Bighorn Basin Field Award for undergrads, graduate students, and faculty (apply by 2 April).
http://www.geosociety.org/
GSA has worked hard to sustain this high level of support and has been able to do
so by actively seeking funds from multiple sources. These include substantial contributions from the National Science Foundation, generous gifts from individual members,and the active participation of GSA’s Divisions. The committee has tinkered
with the grant conditions over the years, striving to provide meaningful support to as
many projects as possible. For example, in 2005, we reluctantly moved to a policy of
only awarding one grant per student per graduate degree, but that helped put us in
position to increase maximum awards from US$3,500 to US$4,000 this year.
Press Release
Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
Released March 1, 2012
Press Release
http://www.nsf.gov/index.jsp
No bias here, is there Enviro?
You can only claim “bias” if there is a reasonable argument for another explanation. Otherwise you must assume that they are reporting facts. Can you provide a link to a reputable “ocean scientist” which offers another explanation?
Carbon Capture and Storage—an Emerging Solution?
[5 March 2012]
Projects show the promise—and challenges—of capturing carbon emissions and storing them far underground to temper global warming, researchers told a AAAS audience.
http://www.aaas.org/
Does this sound to you like an independent organization with no federal funding? Who in their right mind is going to waste resources to sequester CO2? This carbon has been sequestered for millions of years in the form of coal, petroleum, natural gas shale, etc. and even you should be able to understand that carbon was at one time in the atmosphere or ocean in the form of CO2 and yet some how the earth survived very well. When things get tough on earth for all living organisms is when it gets COLD. Could that be why today 90% of the life forms on earth are in the temperate zones?
I forgot that the CO2 is also sequestered in limestone all over the world
Yes. Limestone is part of the geological carbon cycle, which acts over tens of thousands of years to keep the temperature within a ranage that supports life. Not much of an effect over centurries, execpt a negaive one since it’s used to create cement.
I agree- sequestering CO2 does not make sense (too expensive).
But
(1) there was less sunlight in past, so extra CO2 was needed to make the planet habitable
(2)The earth did survive at higher temperatures (with more CO2 that we have today) – but that means higher sea level and less habital land – not an earth that I would want to endow to future generations
The Climate Change Scare Machine Chart
The believers of man-made-weather-disasters are wetting themselves with excitement. It painful to watch grown men drool.
Poor things, they were really wounded by Climategate, and they’ve been waiting, praying that some day someone would level the playing field and show that skeptics were just as petty, shameless, and money-grubbing as their team turned out to be (not to mention hypocritical, deceptive and incompetent). In their dreams.
Instead the hyped non-denier-gate shows just how incredibly successful the Heartland Institute is. Look at the numbers. The skeptics have managed to turn the propaganda around against a tide of money, and it is really some achievement.
…
Entity
USD
Greenpeace
$300m
2010 Annual Report
WWF
$700m
” ($524m Euro)
Pew Charitable Trust
$360m
2010 Annual Report
Sierra Club
$56m
2010 Annual Report
NSW climate change fund (just one random govt example)
$750m
NSW Gov (A$700m)
UK university climate fund (just another random govt example)
$360m
UK Gov (£234 m)
Heartland Institute
$7m
(actually $6.4m)
US government funding for climate science and technology
$7,000m
“Climate Money” 2009
US government funding for “climate related appropriations”
$1,300m
USAID 2010
Annual turnover in global carbon markets
$120,000m
2010 Point Carbon
Annual investment in renewable energy
$243,000m
2010 BNEF
US government funding for skeptical scientists
$ 0
It takes money to do understand the science behind climate change. It also takes money to counter the mis-information and dis-information campaigns funded by the fossil fuel lobby. Again, this cartoon says it all:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/climateinfographic.jpg
Enviro: You are obviously free to believe what ever you want regarding this topic of anthropogenic global warming but please do not expect rational, logical people to believe that a trace gas, CO2, that makes up .036% of the total atmosphere and is 1 &1/2 times heavier than that atmosphere, is responsible for something as complex as what the climate of the earth does. You can apply all of your distorted reasoning that you have done above but come up with some basic and believable FACTS.
It seems that you have no answer as to why the earth entered into an Ice and then began to warm about 12,000 years ago with out any anthropogenic influence on either occurrence, about like the Medieval warm period that was followed by the little ice age. Explain how CO2 and human activity had any thing what so ever to do with any of what I have just mentioned. You can not do so; but, go ahead and make up some more stories to tell hoping that some one will believe them. Also continue to recommend sites that are getting government funding to perpetuate this hoax that you seem to believe in with all of the blind devotion of a cultist and that is what has become for many, a new religion.
I know that Dr. Robert B. Laughlin has a much better understanding of this topic than you could ever hope to acquire from where ever you get your delusional information.
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
I do not think that you want to agree with Dr. Robert B. Laughlin but he has far better credentials to back up his statement than what you possess. Have a nice fun filled day worrying about something that most of the rest of the world has no time nor energy to concern themselves with.
I prefer to belive what all the scientfic organizations and MIT believe.
I definitely agree with “The Earth will heal itself — Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” ‘
The following is just mis-information and not relevant – RELEVNT facts please!
“Climate is beyond our power to control…” – but CO2 emissions WILL influence the climate – RELEVNT facts please!
” You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations – ” – confuses WEATHER and CLIMATE. If the earth is not warming, how come eight of the ten hottest years (or something like that) have occurred since 2000? – RELEVNT facts please!
Envino: Is this the same MIT you are talking about?
Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“For more than 30 years there have been attempts to resolve the paradox with greenhouse gases. Some have suggested CO2—but the amount needed was thousands of times greater than present levels and incompatible with geological evidence. Methane also proved unlikely. It turns out that increased thin cirrus cloud coverage in the tropics readily resolves the paradox—but only if the clouds constitute a negative feedback. In present terms this means that they would diminish rather than enhance the impact of CO2.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
Many of Lindzen’s stands on aspects of climate change have been thorougly debunked, particularly his latest – see http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/
I imagine most of the people at MIT are embarassed by much of what he writes.
I’ll stick with the consensus of the major scientific organizations, NOAA, the The MIT Global Change Joint Program, etc.
Enviro: I present this below to just let you know that I do read some of the garbage that you recommend and this was pure trash.
“Icebergs in Iceland’s Jökulsárlón lagoon, which is constantly growing as the Vatnajökull glacier—Europe’s largest—melts; photograph by Olaf Otto Becker from his book Under the Nordic Light: A Journey Through Time, Iceland, 1999–2011, which has just been published by Hatje Cantz”
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/
“Nordhaus is one of the main economists working on climate change models. As he states “Mankind is playing dice with the natural environment through a multitude of interventions-injecting into the atmosphere trace gases like the greenhouse gases or ozone-depleting chemicals, engineering massive land-use changes such as deforestation, depleting multitudes of species in their natural habitats even while creating transgenic ones in the laboratory, and accumulating sufficient nuclear weapons to destroy human civilizations.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nordhaus
“The author is Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University. He has received support for research on the economics of climate change during the last decade from the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the Glaser Foundation. Other than research associated with these and any future grants, the author declares no conflict of interest.” ↩
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/
Isn’t that something, he gets all of this funding from these known alarmist agencies and groups but can, with a straight face, say that: “Other than research associated with these and any future grants, the author declares no conflict of interest.” Enviro, this clown is as delusional as you are and it for sure proves nothing about the veracity of Dr.Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT.
You can try to come up with some irrelevant comment like: “I imagine most of the people at MIT are embarassed by much of what he writes.” but this below tells you that the earth’s climate is always changing or the glaciers would still be down to Minnesota. I wonder if that would make the agw alarmist fools happy then.
“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.”
who reported this ? the IPCC, the Meteorological Office…. No, that was the US Weather Bureau in 1922.
“The source report of the Washington Post article on changes in the arctic has been found in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922. It is much more detailed than the Washington Post (Associated Press) article. It seems the AP heavily relied on the report from Norway Consulate George Ifft, which is shown below. See the original MWR article below and click the newsprint copy for a complete article or see the link to the original PDF below:”
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/200389-Flashback-1922-Extra-Extra-Read-all-about-it-Arctic-Ocean-Getting-Warm-Seals-Perish-Glaciers-and-Icebergs-Melt-
TEMPERATURES RISING IN
ARCTIC REGION
LOS ANGELES, Friday. Saturday 31 May 1947
Dr. Hans Ahlman, a noted Swedish geophysicist, claimed that a mysteri- ous warming is manifesting itself in the Arctic and if the major ice cap at Greenland should be reduced, the oceanic surfaces will rise to ”catas- trophic proportions,” inundating people living in lowlands along the shores.
Dr. Ahlman urged the establish- ment of an international agency to study conditions on a global basis. Temperatures had risen 10 degrees since 1900. The navigable season along Western Spitzbergen now last- ed eight months instead of three.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2716276>
So much for your crying about the ice disappearing in the arctic.
Enviro: In my way of thinking, Dr. Lendzen has a better background to make comments on CO2 and the climate than what your hero, William D. Nordhaus, has, but I’m sure you do not see it that way and want to go with the economist view over the dynamical meteorologist interpretation of what is actually happening to the earth’s climate. How can this economist feel that he has the right to disqualify others views on this debate?
Lindzen, Richard S.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences
Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause, and provided accepted explanations for atmospheric tides and the quasi-biennial oscillation of the tropical stratosphere. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying what determines the pole to equator temperature difference, the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere and in generating upper level cirrus clouds. He has developed models for the Earth’s climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS’s Meisinger, and Charney Awards, the AGU’s Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Huss Walin Prize. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and has been a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate and the Council of the AMS. He has also been a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., ’64, S.M., ’61, A.B., ’60, Harvard University)
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm>
Biosketch of William D. Nordhaus
William D. Nordhaus is Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. He was born in Albuquerque, New Mexico (which is part of the United States). He completed his undergraduate work at Yale University in 1963 and received his Ph.D. in Economics in 1967 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA. He has been on the faculty of Yale University since 1967 and has been Full Professor of Economics since 1973 and also is Professor in Yale’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Professor Nordhaus lives in downtown New Haven with his wife Barbara, who works at the Yale Child Study Center.
He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He is on the research staff of the National Bureau of Economic Research and has been a member and senior advisor of the Brookings Panel on Economic Activity, Washington, D.C. since 1972. Professor Nordhaus is current or past editor of several scientific journals and has served on the Executive Committees of the American Economic Association and the Eastern Economic Association. He serves on the Congressional Budget Office Panel of Economic Experts and was the first Chairman of the Advisory Committee for the Bureau of Economic Analysis. He was the first Chairman of the newly formed American Economic Association Committee on Federal Statistics. In 2004, he was awarded the prize of “Distinguished Fellow” by the American Economic Association.
From 1977 to 1979, he was a Member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. From 1986 to 1988, he served as the Provost of Yale University. He has served on several committees of the National Academy of Sciences including the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, the Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, the Committee on National Statistics, the Committee on Data and Research on Illegal Drugs, and the Committee on the Implications for Science and Society of Abrupt Climate Change. He recently chaired a Panel of the National Academy of Sciences which produced a report, Nature’s Numbers, that recommended approaches to integrate environmental and other non-market activity into the national economic accounts. More recently, he has directed the Yale Project on Non-Market Accounting, supported by the Glaser Foundation.
He is the author of many books, among them Invention, Growth and Welfare, Is Growth Obsolete?, The Efficient Use of Energy Resources, Reforming Federal Regulation, Managing the Global Commons, Warming the World, and (joint with Paul Samuelson) the classic textbook, Economics, whose nineteenth edition will be published in 2009. His research has focused on economic growth and natural resources, the economics of climate change, as well as the resource constraints on economic growth. Since the 1970s, he has developed economic approaches to global warming, including the construction of integrated economic and scientific models (the DICE and RICE models) to determine the efficient path for coping with climate change, with the latest vintage, DICE-2007, published in A Question of Balance (Yale University Press, 2008). Professor Nordhaus has also studied wage and price behavior, health economics, augmented national accounting, the political business cycle, productivity, and the “new economy.” His 1996 study of the economic history of lighting back to Babylonian times found that the measurement of long-term economic growth has been significantly underestimated. He returned to Mesopotamian economics with a study, published in 2002 before the war, of the costs of the U.S. war in Iraq, projecting a cost as high as $2 trillion. Recently, he has undertaken the “G-Econ project,” which provides the first comprehensive measures of economic activity at a geophysical scale.”
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/biosketch.htm
Jimmy Carter served as president from Jan. 20, 1977, to Jan. 20, 1981. From 1977 to 1979, Nordhaus was a Member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. If I remember right, the economy under Carter went totally to hell and Nordhaus must have helped to get it in the doldrums: therefore, he is no better at being an economist than he is now picking who is right or wrong about the climate.
IS BELIEF IN AGW A CULT?
Our Global Warming cultists deny they are well, cultists.
Okay, let’s examine record:
They worship a pantheon of gods, starting with Mother Gaia. They even opened
their latest congregation at Canned Corn by offering a prayer to one of the
local Deities. Remember, these are the same people who claim to have science
on their side (H/T Andrew Bolt).
They have a Prophet in the form of Al Gore – the Goracle, who has many
mansions and travels the world in a big jet, spreading their Gospel – “Do as
I say, not as I do”.
They have a Holy Book – the IPCC Report, which is infallible, even when it
is proved wrong. Don’t mention melting Himalayan glaciers to a Believer. It
sends them into a religious frenzy.
They have a Devil called CO2, which they hate with all the passionate,
religious fervor they can muster. This devil, CO2, is responsible for all the
evil in the world, and will cause the gods to rain down any manner of
plagues – droughts, floods, locusts, acne etc. – if all of humanity does not
rise up at once to banish it.
They are driven by an all-consuming urge to erect tall monuments to their
gods, in the form of windmills. These don’t actually do very much at all,
except imbue the Faithful with a sense of religious righteousness for having
been erected.
Nonetheless, construction of these useless religious artifacts has meant the
diversion of vast amounts of finance, materials and labor from being
employed elsewhere – for instance to build REAL power stations.
This means many people are now going to die from exposure to the elements.
Consider them human sacrifices to the gods. Just as is practiced by other
pagan cults.
They have Holy Water in the form of biofuel. If only enough people used this
sacred elixir, the devil CO2 would be cast out and the world would be saved.
One way or another, biofuel is manufactured at the expense of food. This
means many people will now starve. More pagan cult human sacrifices.
They have holy places where they go to gain enlightenment from their
Priests. Principal amongst these sacred sites is RealClimate, but there are
many others.
They believe in the dispensation of sin through monetary penance. One can
gain forgiveness for the sin of invoking the Devil CO2 by buying a
dispensation in the form of a carbon credit. They are incensed that the
heathen masses are somewhat reluctant to take up this practice.
They quest endlessly for a “sign in the heavens” – their Holy Grail – the
mythical “hotspot” in the troposphere over the equator.
They speak in tongues, chanting irrational religious utterings – such as –
“global warming causes global cooling causes global warming causes global
cooling” and still expect to be taken seriously.
So, in summary:
They have Gods, a Prophet, priests and sacred sites, an infallible Holy
Book, a Devil, a Holy Grail and a Quest. They preach of impending doom by
plagues if they are not believed and followed.
They divert scarce resources to the construction of useless religious
monuments and the creation of sacred Holy Water. They practice human
sacrifice, they believe in the dispensation of sin through pecuniary
penance, and they chant meaningless dogma.
Sure the heck sounds like a cult to me.
Time to go to work.
If what you are saying is true about CO2 causing this “catastrophic” rise in world temperature, then why do these world high temperature records still stand?
What follows are world record high temperatures: World (Africa) El Azizia, Libya; Sept. 13, 1922, (136F):
North America (U.S.), Death Valley, Calif.; July 10, 1913 (134F);
Asia; Tirat Tsvi, Israel, June 21, 1942, (129F):
Australia ,Cloncurry, Queensland; Jan. 16, 1889 (128F):
Europe, Seville, Spain,Aug. 4, 1881 (122F):
South America, Rivadavia, Argentina; Dec. 11, 1905 (120F):
Canada,Midale and Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan, Canada; July 5, 1937 (113F):
Oceania;Tuguegarao, Philippines, April 29, 1912 (108F):
Persian Gulf (sea-surface): Aug. 5, 1924 (96F):
Antarctica; Vanda Station, Scott Coast, Jan. 5, 1974 (59F):
South Pole, Dec. 27, 1978, (7.5F).
Highest average annual mean temperature (world): Dallol, Ethiopia (Oct. 1960 Dec. 1966), 94° F.
Longest hot spell (world): Marble Bar, W. Australia, 100° F (or above) for 162 consecutive days, Oct. 30, 1923 to Apr. 7, 1924. Notice anything regarding the dates of these records? Anyone heard of the dust bowl & wasn’t that in the 30s
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html
The above information can be confirmed here also:
http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/weather_extremes.php>
How does this stack up with your agw and have you seen what kind of a winter Europe and Alaska is having and take a look at the suffering taking place now in Mongolia, where I have been.
Last Updated: Wednesday January 05 2011 17:09 GMT
Several ships and more than 1,000 crew got stuck in arctic ice off the coast of Russia after the sea froze over!
Rescuers have used a huge icebreaker to free two of the ships from the Sea of Okhotsk, but a smaller icebreaker also got stuck in the ice for several hours.
Rescuer Captain Antokhin said: “The ice is very serious, frozen in layers, covered in snow and hard to pass through. It sticks onto the ship.”
http://cdnedge.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_9340000/newsid_9341000/9341080.stm
Three other ships that are still stuck have been there since 30 December!
Something more current for you to try to discount.
“ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — A Russian tanker hauling much-needed fuel across the ice-choked Bering Sea has arrived at Alaska’s western coastline and was waiting for daylight Friday morning near the town of Nome.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/13/renda-fuel-tanker-nome-arrival_n_1203886.html?ref=green&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008
“Mongolian herders see their animals destroyed as freezing winter temperatures grip the country”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/7449122/Mongolian-herders-see-their-animals-destroyed-as-freezing-winter-temperatures-grip-the-country.html?image=4
Would you call it a “cold snap” when people have to cut tunnels through 15 feet of snow to get out of their homes? “Eastern Europe has been pummeled by a record-breaking cold snap,” says this otherwise great AP article.
Look at these headlines. Are these the result of a “cold snap”?
○ Serbia cuts power in desperate bid to prevent collapse of national grid
The country’s entire electric distribution system could collapse…
○ Hundreds of barns collapse in Italy
At least one million farm animals in danger of running out of food.
○ Villages buried under 4-5 meters of snow – Video
“23.000 people are isolated, how many people and animals have died we don’t know since nobody can reach there.”
○ Italian villages trapped in more than 9 feet of snow
With the death toll already at 43, another blast of freezing weather…
○ Danube freezes over – One of the greatest rivers in Europe
Danube wholly or partially blocked in six countries.
○ Most winter grain destroyed in southern and eastern Ukraine
With temperatures 12 to 17C below average, the situation in Ukraine has became serious.
○ European death toll rises to 480 – and counting
150 cattle killed when roofs collapse. “It seems more like a war in Europe.”
○ Code red for agriculture in Tuscany
“Blizzard comes and farmers tremble” – Loss rates up to 50%.
○ Turkey quake survivors fighting the snow
Walking 300 feet through the snow to reach the nearest toilets.
No, this is no mere cold snap. There’s a tragedy unfolding in Europe, and the world needs to know.
http://iceagenow.info/2012/02/tragedy-unfolding-europe-u-s-media-ignore-it/
I’m sure this is all news to you and you could care less about anyone but your self.
CO2 has not yet caused a “catastrophic” rise in world temperature, but, given current emissions rates, it will before the end if the century.
You are confusing “weather” with “climate”. Most climate scientists predict that the weather will get more variable, with some cold extremes but with many more hot extremes. How do you account for the fact that 8 of 10 of the overall warmest years in the last 150 years have been since 2000? Individual weather events are not relevant. RELEVANT facts please!
Enviro: It appears from what you write, that it is you who doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate. I have followed your type enough to know that if it is a warm event, then it is a sure sign of climate change; but, when it is a cold event, to include three record breaking winters, then it is classified as “weather” by your way of “thinking”.
“cli·mate
1. The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.
2. A region of the earth having particular meteorological conditions: lives in a cold climate.
3. A prevailing condition or set of attitudes in human affairs: a climate of unrest.”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/climate>
“weath·er
1. The state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, with respect to variables such as temperature, moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure.
2.
a. Adverse or destructive atmospheric conditions, such as high winds or heavy rain: encountered weather five miles out to sea.
b. The unpleasant or destructive effects of such atmospheric conditions: protected the house from the weather.”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/weather>
“Weather Definition
Weather is the day-to-day conditions of a particular place.
For example: It was raining today at school. Yesterday it was sunny at home.
What is Climate?
Climate is often spoken about at the same time as weather, but it is something quite different. The climate is the common, average weather conditions at a particular place over a long period of time (for example, more than 30 years). We learn about different climates around the world. Deserts have a hot and dry climate while the Antarctic has a very cold and dry climate.”
http://www.econet.org.uk/weather/whatis.html>
Again, you gave examples of WEATHER events. One cold year here or one warm year there is weather. By 13 of the warmist years since 1988 all occuring in the last 15 years is climate. And each of the last 3 decades being warmer than the previous is climate (according to the definition above)
Record Lows – 2008
Record Low Temperatures in the United States
RECORD OCTOBER COLD IN ANCHORAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE ANCHORAGE AK
RESIDENTS IN ANCHORAGE WILL AGREE THIS OCTOBER WAS A BIT COLDER THAN
USUAL. NOT ONLY WAS THE MONTH COLDER THAN NORMAL BUT THE AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE OF 29.6 DEGREES PLACED OCTOBER WITHIN THE TOP TEN
COLDEST OUT OF SOME 90 YEARS OF CLIMATE RECORDS FOR THE CITY.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2008.htm
Are you that sure about your warming, Enviro?
Rural US Sites Show No Temperature Increase Since 1900
Using data downloaded from NASA GISS and picking rural sites near, but not too near, to urban sites, a comparison has been made of the temperature trend over time of the rural sites compared to those of the urban sites. 28 pairs of sites across the U.S. were compared. The paired rural site is from 31 to 91 km from the urban site in each pair. The result is that urban and rural sites were similar in 1900, with the urban sites slightly higher. The urban sites have shown an increase in temperatures since then. The rural sites show no such temperature increase and appear to be generally unchanging with only ups and downs localized in time. Over a 111 year time span, the urban sites temperatures have risen to be about 1.5C warmer than the rural sites. So, the much touted rising temperatures in the U.S. are due to the urban heat island effect and not due to a global warming such as has been proposed to be caused by human emissions of CO2 due to the combustion of fossil fuels.
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2009/12/rural-us-sites-show-no-temperature.html
Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its data sets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.
Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data sets.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.
It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).
For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
Global satellite data is analyzed for temperature trends for the period January 1979through June 2009. Beginning and ending segments show a cooling trend, while the middle segment evinces a warming trend. The past 12to 13years show cooling using both satellite data sets, with lower confidence limits that do not exclude a negative trend until 16years. It is shown that several published studies have predicted cooling in this time frame. One of these models is extrapolated from its 2000 calibration end date and shows a good match to the satellite data, with a projection of continued cooling for several more decades.
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230
Absolutely sure of the warming trend – the 13 warmest years in the last 150 years have all occurred since 1997 – that’s quite a trend!
“Global warming is real, according to a major study released today. Despite issues raised by climate change skeptics, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study finds reliable evidence of a rise in the average world land temperature of approximately 1° C since the mid-1950s.” Just Google “Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature” and you will find that the study was done (and paid for) by skeptics! (I think thhe 1 degree C is a bit high, but you get the point)
Enviro: Could this link; and, please do open it and watch the YouTube presentation, have something to do with anyone involved in your “Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature”?
Climategate ‘hide the decline’ explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
Enviro says:
March 13, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Absolutely sure of the warming trend – the 13 warmest years in the last 150 years have all occurred since 1997 – that’s quite a trend!
Enviro: A question for you, why don’t you use your real name? Are you afraid that some one that you know will know just how out of touch with reality you really are? Anyway you say: “Absolutely sure of the warming trend – the 13 warmest years in the last 150 years have all occurred since 1997 – that’s quite a trend!” to which I reply that if you think you are sure of this then what ever else you think you know is probably based on the same type of lies that this statement originated from.
I had provided you with information about all of the reporting stations that had been dropped and where they are located but you can not put two and two together and that is very sad indeed. If you can not understand the written word then try to get it told to you by people that know what is going on regarding your favorite scam, AGW.
Open this link and see/hear the explanation for the total BS that you presented above.
“Breaking News! Climategate comes to the United States! Meet the two men who have dug through several layers of computer codes to uncover manipulation of the world temperature data to support the claims of global warming. This is a major climate scandal involving United States government agencies.”
John Coleman, KUSI Meteorologist
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/201362-Cooked-US-government-s-central-role-in-fudging-the-data-behind-global-warming-
Notice the key word here, Enviro, Meteorologist ?
Something else that you should look at and get back to me on. It is well laid out with comparisons of charts.
“NASA’s James Hansen is the United States’ leading scientific alarmist about global warming. He believes global warming is accelerating. Apparently it’s his revisions of the data that are causing the acceleration.
This document examines the historical revision in the global temperature change as defined by Hansen over the decades. Hansen’s global temperature graphs are examined from 1981 to 2007.
Most of his publications are referenced here: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Hansen_GlobalTemp.htm
“The coldest temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere is -90F.”
-92F is forecast for tonight.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/weather-underground-forecasting-all-time-record-cold-for-the-northern-hemisphere-tonight/
Summit, Greenland
1:17 AM WGT on March 15, 2012 (GMT -0300)
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=72.58000183,-38.45000076
Now
Cloudy
Temperature
-45 °C
Feels Like -45 °C
Wind(km/h)
10
Sunrise / Set
5:55 AM
5:31 PM
Moon
Waning Gibbous
More Astronomy
Tonight
-47 °C
Mostly Cloudy
Thursday
-42 °C
Partly Cloudy
Thursday Night
-41 °C
Overcast
Friday
-36 | -36 °C
Mostly Cloudy
Saturday
-33 | -42 °C
Clear
Sunday
-36 | -43 °C
Mostly Cloudy
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=72.58000183,-38.45000076
Do you still think that Greenland is melting into the sea?
Here’s an interesting link:
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
National Academy of Sciences (Note: these scientists are NOT paid for their work for the NAS)
This report concludes that large-scale surface temperature
reconstructions are important tools in our understanding of global climate change that
allows us to say, with a high level of confidence, that global mean surface temperature
was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable
period during the preceding four centuries. Less confidence can be placed in large-scale
surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600, although
available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual
locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable
length since A.D. 900.
Another interesting link about the 97% of climate scientists supporting the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) : (published 2009)
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
Expert credibility in climate change
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual”. –Galileo
In this instance, there is more than one scientist that questions this anthropogenic theory.
So what? Are you 100% sure the these scientists are right? What if they are wong?
Global Warming Petition Project
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Enviro: You have probably never heard of one of the signers of this Petition, Edward Teller, but he is considered to have been a very sharp person who probably would not have signed on to this if it was something that he did not believe in.
So he is a sharp person. So what? He can still be wrong. I’ll stick w the IPCC, NAS, NSF, the vast majority of scientific organizations, etc.
Doug –
I AM obsessed with the increase of 280 ppm to 392ppm – I’ll stick with the RELEVANT FACTS about why CO2 causes the earth to be both habital and warrming. Rather than spew extraneous information, can you point to any credible climate scientist who does not think that CO2 causes the earth to be both habital and warrming?
Enviro: Some more folks who do not share your delusional views about AGW
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize
Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any
funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” –
Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to
receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more
than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of
the last 100 years.”
“Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people
come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and
scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning
PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It
doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize
has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not
geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and
a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only
are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do
not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a
researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous
University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a
fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S
Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane
Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have
little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds
dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a
professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the
University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment
[comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate
statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast
evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and
Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand
that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” –
Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008
International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed
papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly
found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be
useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo
Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a
skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from
promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers
ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space
Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…
The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a
pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology,
which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos
of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more
than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every
scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a
political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations
walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of
Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it
is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr.
Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and
head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata
I’m sure that you can keep quoting ignorant scientists. I’ll stick with the consensus of the major scientific organizations, NOAA, the The MIT Global Change Joint Program, etc.
Enviro said: “I’m sure that you can keep quoting ignorant scientists. I’ll stick with the consensus of the major scientific organizations, NOAA, the The MIT Global Change Joint Program, etc.”
Enviro feels that they can call the list of scientist that I provided “ignorant”. At least they are scientist, unlike the spokesman for this scam, Al Gore, who studied law at Vanderbilt Law School and for sure didn’t finish his divinity training there either. The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, is an economist. “It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all, 80 percent of the IPCC membership has absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.” Another interesting point regarding this scam is why it has become a left-right issue. What ever happened to the days gone by when science was apolitical and stood on the merits of the research and that meant that the debate was never over. This is one of the key components of the scientific process that, at one time before Al Gore became involved, challenges were welcomed to tests the hypotheses “A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.”
This is the education that Steve Running used to gain his share of the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and then they criticize some one like Dr. John Christy because he shows how flawed their contentions are. This may be a shock to some that worship at this cathedral of their religion, global warming, but Al Gore has no scientific credentials and Steve Running, who holds a “B.S. in Botany; Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1972, M.S. in Forest Management; Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1973 and a Ph.D. in Forest Ecophysiology; {what ever that is}, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 1979.
“Plant ecophysiology is an experimental science that seeks to describe the physiological mechanisms underlying ecological observations.” At least he has been exposed to science but is a long ways from being a climatologist, but then again, how much difference do credentials make when the head of the IPCC is an economist?
Then we have Dr. John Christy:
“Ph.D., Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, 1987 M.S., Atmospheric Sciences, , University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, 1984; B.A., Mathematics, California State University, Fresno, 1969” and also, as I had mentioned before, “Richard Siegmund Lindzen who is a Harvard-trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 books and scientific papers. He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the alleged political pressures on climate scientists” I tend to listen to Dr. Christy, Dr Spencer and Dr. Lindzen before paying much attention to Gore, Running or James Hansen.
Al Gore has been great at publicizing the climate change problem, but when dealing with facts it’s always best to look at the work of actual climate scientists. Of course, when you do, you will see that he is mostly has his facts right.
Enviro: When will you start with “the RELEVANT FACTS about why CO2 causes the earth to be both habital and warrming”? Do so soon because I am about tired of this. I generally enter into these types of discussions hoping to learn something and I see no opportunity for that to occur from this discussion with you. It is obvious that from what I showed you, that you do not see just how irrelevant CO2 is in the total atmosphere, especially since it is 1 & 1/2 times heaver than the rest of the atmosphere.
IRRELEVANT FACT – CO2 is 1 & 1/2 times heaver than the rest of the atmosphere.
RELEVANT FACT – CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/) Can you provide a link that disputes this fact?
RELEVANT FACT – CO2 is one of the major drivers of keeping the Earth’s temperature habitable. CO2 selectively absorbs radiated energy from the earth, thus warming the planet.(http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Carbon+Educational+Tools) Can you provide a link that disputes this fact?
Can you provide a link to a climate scientist who thinks that CO2 is irrelevant?
Doug –
Re “My Lord, Enviro, how many times and different ways do I have to show you that I did look into the completely irrelevant site that you wasted my time looking into. You, above, did say one thing correct and that, while what I have stated is not irrelevant, they are FACTS. I issue these other Facts for your consideration and await you to make up something to answer the question.”
I’ve pointed you to Web sites that shows that CO2 selectively absorbs radiated energy from the earth, thus warming the planet. Do you have a link to either a site that disputes this or has a different explanation?
Doug –
Regarding CO2 and the earth’s temperature – you seem to prefer negative comments of non-experts. Can you privide a link to any climate scientist who disputes the role of CO2 in warming the earth?
Enviro says:
March 12, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Doug –
Regarding CO2 and the earth’s temperature – you seem to prefer negative comments of non-experts. Can you privide a link to any climate scientist who disputes the role of CO2 in warming the earth?
Enviro: Go through this list and maybe that will keep you busy for the rest of your life.
CLEVELAND – “The science is settled!” That’s the slogan used by the pro-Global Warming crowd. but is it really? Below is a list of 800 papers by respected and awarded scientists that question or contradict the Man-Made Global Warming Theory (AGW). The science is NOT settled… This list was compiled by Andrew over at PopularTechnology.net. This is worth sifting through!
Read more: http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/800-reasons-to-be-a-man-made-global-warming-skeptic#ixzz1ozSTAnOv
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/800-reasons-to-be-a-man-made-global-warming-skeptic
I prefer peer-reviewed articles. But the real problem is that “it’s particluarly hard to make predictions, especially about the future”. Unless you can guarantee that the earth will not warm because of CO2 emissions, and if many scientists think it will, it is only prudent to take reasonable steps to reduce CO2. Becuase if they are right, by the time we know for sure, it will be too late to prevent really bad climate changes
Enviro: I doubt that you have ever read a peer reviewed article in your life, but that is not the issue here. Are you saying that all of 800 papers by respected and awarded scientists that question or contradict the Man-Made Global Warming Theory were not peer-reviewed. You need to read Donna Laframboise’s book: “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert”.
The book is entirely about the IPCC process: “for example, several of the lead authors of the IPCC reports lacked experience, qualifications and appear to be chosen for their connections to WWF, EDF, Greenpeace and other environmental NGO’s – all of which is exposed in this book including names, dates and full references. Furthermore, the book confirms that over 5,000 references (including some of the strongest high impact claims of the IPCC showing evidence of the dangerousness of man-made Global Warming) are to “grey literature” – i.e. to reports that were NEVER verified by peer review – all this despite assurances from the head of the IPCC that the IPCC ONLY use peer-reviewed science in their “climate bible” report. Worse the book also provides conclusive evidence that some influential people within the IPCC were well aware of deficiencies and yet took no action to correct inadequacies in these processes (the book includes explicit examples where IPCC authors elevated their concerns about the poor quality and misrepresentation of the scientific consensus by the IPCC process …but these concerns were simply swept aside!”
So, Enviro, just HOW RELEVANT is anything that the IPCC puts out about anything? Remember the doped up WWF fools claiming that by 2030 all of the glaciers in the Himalayan mountains will be gone? I have been to Nepal three times and never saw any glaciers disappearing; but, then again, I wasn’t smoking anything.
Doug –
I’ll stick w the IPCC, NAS, NSF, the vast majority of scientific organizations, etc. One of the these days you will respect organizations like the IPCC that recognize their errors (unlike the majority of the “deniers”) – the Himalaya glaciers were expected to be melted by 2300 – and a typo changed that to 2030. Out of thousands of items, the “deniers” have only found a few that were wrong, and in each case admitted the mistakes. Not bad!
Enviro
The lethal dose for CO2 is 100000 ppm with warning signs at 5000 ppm.
Going from 280 ppm to 392ppm is trivial in the grand scheme of things. Extra CO2 will enhance plant life and help to fight world hunger. It actually would be a good environment to hand off to the next generation.
Most of the perceived measurement of sea level rising has been found that big cities are sinking from over pumping ground water.
Earth is not a stagnant system that you are going to set with a thermostat.
Going from 280 ppm to 392ppm may seem trivial, but going to 450ppm may be enough to raise sea levels over 40 feet (over centuries) (no guaranee that it will, but no guarantee that it won’t)
“Most of the perceived measurement of sea level rising has been found that big cities are sinking from over pumping ground water.” – a very mis-informed statement. – see comments above
Doug –
re “Enviro: Look at these sties provided above to get a true and, for that reason, different perspective of what you think you know about this topic.” – Those sites don’t contribute to the “debate”. If you’re going to disagree w NASA, NOAA, NSF, and MIT, you’ll need some better arguments. RELEVANT FACTS PLEASE!
Re the referenced links:
http://i42.tinypic.com/54aes8.jpg – Good graph – but CO2 is what drives the H20 – how about a simililar link for CO2
http://i44.tinypic.com/24zayi1.jpg – cool graph but the scale is too small to see the relevant info – another example of fooling the viewer into thinking there is not a problem
Can you provide a single link to a reputable organization which refutes the facts on the following Web page:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q1
I keep asking your for links to relevant facts, and I have yet to see one. I’ll keep repeating this line until I see some.
Doug –
Wanted to add, re http://i44.tinypic.com/24zayi1.jpg
(1) “Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.” (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html)- so you should probably discount most of the graph – YOUR IMAGE IS MISLEADING
(2) The graph shows CO2 almost flat, when in reality it’s steadily increasing:http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/datasets/mauna/image3b.html
– YOUR IMAGE IS MISLEADING
At what point will you start disregading “info” from misleading sites?
“Greenhouse gases absorb this energy, thereby allowing less heat to escape back to space, and ‘trapping’ it in the lower atmosphere. Many greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and nitrous oxide, while others are synthetic.”
Again Enviro, I ask you how you are going g to “trap” something with a gas, CO2, that makes up .036% of the atmosphere and is 1.5 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere:
(ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2
http://greenparty.ca/blogs/169/2009-01-03/ppm-co2-altitude-and-mass-co2-atmosphere-8520-metres-beyond-which-there-practic )
I remind you that:
A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large
kitchen sink.
A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There
are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons
per gallon.
Some other things that are one part per million are…
One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
One inch in 16 miles
About one minute in two years
One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from
Cleveland to San Francisco.
One penny in $10,000.
Prior to the industrial revolution, concentrations were fairly stable at 280ppm. Today, they are around 370ppm, an increase of well over 30 percent. The atmospheric concentration has a marked seasonal oscillation that is mostly due to the greater extent of landmass in the northern hemisphere (NH) and its vegetation. A greater drawdown of CO2 occurs in the NH spring and summer as plants convert CO2 to plant material through photosynthesis. It is then released again in the fall and winter as the plants decompose.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html
They did manage to get one thing right and probably are unaware of the fact that CO2 is essential for life on earth since all life revolves around plants.
It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively ‘trap’ heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q1
This simple graph of the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Record documents a 0.53 percent or two parts per million per year increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1958. This gas alone is responsible for 63 percent of the warming attributable to all greenhouse gases according to NOAA’s Earth System Research Lab.
http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/datasets/mauna/image3b.html
They have one thing right, simple! The rest is pure, unadulterated & unproven nonsense.
If they do not want to understand that water vapor makes up 95% of what constitutes the green house effect, then consider that the coldest nights of the year occur when there is, guess what, no cloud cover to hold the radiated heat in. This is why the deserts, that have almost no humidity and clear nights, can be 130 degrees F during the day time and drop to freezing at night. Seems simple to understand.
Open this link and see what the real story is regarding CO2. Sun angle is also a factor which is why we have seasons. This would apply to the arctic and Antarctic which are veritable deserts because of very little precipitation. I spend many years in the Arctic and the humidity is very low to the point that nose bleeds are common.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Enviro seems to think that I’m going to believe everything that the United States Government tells me. I believed them once when they told me that I needed to go to Vietnam to stop the spread of Communism and that was the last time I believed basically anything that they have told me and I for sure am not going to believe a charlatan like James Hansen who has never told the truth about anything.
Doug –
You must really enjoy being misled!!! When I find one really bad assumption, I don’t bother looking for more and just discount the entire calculation. The web page http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html stipulates that only 3% of the CO2 is manmade. This is off by an order of magnitude – it’s more like 30% ! Please provide links with credible data!
Again: CO2 is transparent visible light but absorbs and retransmits infrared radiation; given enough – and there is enough – it will warm the planet; the Earth would be about 60 degrees F colder than it is now if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere. Water vapor only stays in the atmosphere because CO2 keeps it warm – a positive feedback. This is NOT a theory – is a simple matter of physics which has been known for over 150 years
EN: Where do you come up with this kind of nonsense? Al Gore wouldn’t even make a claim like you did.
Not only would Al Gore agree with me, but the vast majority of climate scientists would!
How many sites do I need to give you? Can’t you reason for yourself?
http://www.c2es.org/facts-figures/basics/greenhouse-effect
http://nova.stanford.edu/projects/mod-x/id-green.html
Enviro: What follows are the thought of some real scientist and the know much more about this topic that you will ever hope to know. If you knew anything about the topic you would not be writing the nonsense that you do.
Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1,000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:
“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.
“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.
“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” — Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.
“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” — Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” — Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”
“I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” — Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic’s View.”
“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” — Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Update December 9, 2010]
“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring’s quote.]
“Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” — Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004” by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.”
“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” — Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.
“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.
“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” — Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” — Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”
“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.
Hello All,
I am really enjoying this back and forth regarding this issue. It seems that a lot of thought and research goes into the various responses. I thought that I would perhaps throw a little fuel on the fire of debate to mention that this has become a part of the 2012 US Presidential Election campaign. Former US Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), is running for the Republican nomination as President. Senator Santorum recently spoke to those attending the Gulf Coast Energy Summit in Biloxi, Mississippi, on Monday and said, at least according to news sources regarding Climate Change — that it’s a liberal myth. Here’s a link to the article. http://www.littleurl.net/531083 – You might not only find the article interesting, but the discussion in the “comments” area too. Thanks so much for all the great feedback on this!
Regards,
Rick Pantaleo
Rick Pantaleo: I thank you for the link and , as you might imagine, I agree with Rick Santorum’s assessment of this anthropogenic global warming hoax. Until I began to study AGW several years ago, I was ambivalent regarding it; but, after open-minded study of the issue, one can not imagine that CO2 is the driving force of the earth’s climate.
The fact that enacting laws to combat something that is not a problem will have devastating consequences for the U.S.. The Cap and Trade nonsense proposed by very liberal members of both the House and Senate would have done nothing more than make a few people very rich. All of the billions of dollars that this current administration has squandered on “green projects” has been money wasted. One only needs to look at how it has all worked out for Spain to see that it will only further force a country that no longer produces much of anything, the U.S., into becoming a third world nation.
“In May 2010 the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report entitled “How Policies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Could Affect Employment.” The CBO report shows that emissions reduction programs would cause job losses in coal mining, oil and gas extraction, gas utilities, and petroleum refining. It concluded that “job losses in the industries that shrink would lower employment more than job gains in other industries would increase employment, thereby raising the overall unemployment rate.”
“In contrast, radical environmentalism has a blind devotion to the promotion of a radical agenda that ignores the interests and property rights of people. Global warming became the litmus test of this movement.”
http://www.redstate.com/rjsantorum/2012/03/10/blown-and-tossed-by-the-winds-of-political-correctness/
There is no question of this movement being a cult.
Just because a scientist says that “one cannot imagine that CO2 is the driving force of the earth’s climate.” does not mean that it’s not. He’s letting his biases get in the way of actual facts (CO2 is transparent visible light but absorbs and retransmits infrared radiation; given enough – and there is enough – it will warm the planet; the Earth would be about 60 degrees F colder than it is now if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere. This is NOT a theory – is a simple matter of physics which has been known for over 150 years)
EN. Show one experiment carried out that makes what you claim above about a trace gas, CO2, that makes up a scant .036% of the atmosphere and is 1 &1/2 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere the driver of something as complex as the earth’s climate. You can not do so so quit with the BS. There may be intelligent design after all because since CO2 is 1 &1/2 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere it seems that the life forms that relies on it are on the surface of the earth. What bag did you pull your “Earth would be about 60 degrees F colder than it is now if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere.”? Some more of your “trapping” something with a gas nonsense is not a valid answer, as anyone knows that can use logic.
Rick Pantaleo: I did check out the comments and they are amazing and brought these quotes to mind that I now share with you:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” – Bertrand Russel
Pertains to Global warming:
As Bertrand Russell said: “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”
People think they are thinking when all they are doing is rearranging their prejudices
Describes the IPCC Panel quite well:
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual”. –Galileo
As Galileo said, if God did not want us to use our intelligence, why did he give it to us?
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” — Thomas Paine
The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) must have foreseen Global Warm-ism. He said: “The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
Envrio
While most people agree the earth is over one billion years old, you want to cherry pick the last 150 years as proof that earth is warming.
That is hilarious.
I only used 150 years since that’s when the best temp records are – not exacly cherry picking! Most climate scientists think that the previous 15 years are the warmest 15-year period in the last 900 (if not 2000) years.
It was certainly warmer in the Earth’s past- but I don’t think you’d be happy living near the North Pole with billions of other people!
The ‘Mediaeval Warm Period’ and the ‘Little Ice Age’ are proof enough that significant climate change can happen in the space of 150 years… or do you dispute them too?
The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. What is more, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today.
Yes, there can be significant changes in 150 years. The important “idea” is that the Earth’s temperature had been relatively constant (actually declining bit) for thousands of years before 1850 (or so). Since 1850 the temperature has increased about .8 degrees C. The difference this time is that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. This additional CO2 will cause the temperature to increase. Are you 100% certain that the increased CO2 will not cause problems?
EN: Just why is warm bad? (I changed this some that came from the link that follows; therefore, it is not a direct quote.)
Near the beginning of the current interglacial, global temperatures rose considerably about 10,000 years ago to begin a period of time referred to as the Holocene. Mean annual temperatures in the Midwestern United States were about 2 °C warmer than those of the past few decades summer temperatures in Europe were 2 °C warmer , as they also were in New Guinea & In the Russian Far East, temperatures are also reported to have been from 2 °C to as much as 4-6 °C higher than they are today. The Sahara, for example, was actually moist at this time and contained many lakes, as the summer monsoon migrated northward by some 600 kilometers, helping to create the extensive groundwater deposits of that region and giving life to ecosystems that supported crocodiles, giraffes, elephants and gazelles. (EV: Ever read about the cave drawings in the Sahara that shows savanna animals?) Increased monsoon moisture also extended across Saudi Arabia, Mesopotamia, and the Rajastan Desert of India , drastically altering and enhancing the productivity of those lands as well. Indeed, because of the perception that these many biospheric changes were of a positive nature, this much warmer period than the present is often referred to as the Holocene Climatic Optimum. And it was during this particular warm interval that the world experienced perhaps the greatest of all anthropogenic advancements – “the rise of human civilization, based on the development of agriculture .”
http://www.co2science.org/subject/other/clim_hist_tenthousand.php
Since when do we know for certain what GLOBAL temperatures were 10,000 years ago? Scientists have had a hard time trying to go back just 1000 years. Let’s stick to recent years where the science is more certain!
More than 2 degrees C above pre-industrial temps is probably bad because of the expected WEATHER changes – more drougts, floods, sea level rise, etc, and problems with animals and plants adapting to the unparalled changes in temperatures.. There are costs of action and costs of inaction. Why not buy some “insurance” and ttake steps to reduce CO2 now?
EV: I have selected a few excerpts from a very good paper put together by someone that knows much about what they explain, Thomas Gale Moor. Stanford is always considered to be one of the best sources for most information. One can only wonder at where you came up with erroneous piece of “information”. “The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age.” What are you saying, that it was colder in Greenland when the Vikings established colonies there and farmed and raised livestock during this period?
“What is well known is that climate changes. The world has shifted from periods that were considerably warmer — during the Mesozoic era when the dinosaurs thrived the earth appears to have been about 18deg. Fahrenheit warmer than now — to spells that were substantially colder, such as the Ice Ages when huge glaciers submerged much of the Northern Hemisphere.[6] One paleoclimatologist estimated that, during the Precambrian period, the polar regions were about 36deg.F colder than they are in the contemporary world.[7] During the last interglacial, about 130,000 years ago or about when modern man was first exploring the globe, the average temperature in Europe was at least 2deg. to 5deg.F warmer than at present.[8] Hippopotamuses, lions, rhinoceroses and elephants roamed the English countryside. Areas watered today by the monsoons in Africa and east Asia enjoyed even more rainfall then. Indeed during the last 12,000 years, that is since the end of the last glacial period, the globe has alternated between times substantially warmer and epochs that were noticeably cooler.”
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html
“During the Holocene, very rapid changes of climate occurred. According to dendroclimatology [tree ring analysis applied to climatology], they often lasted about 20 to 30 years, or [were] even as brief as 2 to 3 years.”[18] Other climate historians have found that a rapid cooling in the late glacial period — about 11,000 years ago –took about 100 to 150 years to complete and realized about 5deg.F variation in temperature within 100 years, more than is being forecast for the next century.[19]
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html
“Although changes in the earth’s orbital position may easily have played a role in warming the earth after the last Ice Age, the effect was world-wide rather than concentrated in northern latitudes. Ice retreated in the Southern as well as in the Northern Hemisphere. Moreover, in the subsequent warming, from around 7,000 to 4,000 years ago, the climate around the world appears to have improved. Although the evidence for warming in the Southern Hemisphere is weaker, even if higher temperatures had been localized in one hemisphere or one continent, the effect on human beings would still tell us about the benefits or costs of climatic change.”
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html
“Carbon dioxide concentrations may have been up to sixteen times higher about 60 million years ago without producing runaway greenhouse effects.[28] Other periods experienced two to four times current levels of CO2 with some warming. Scientists have been unable to determine whether the warming preceded or followed the rises in carbon dioxide. For virtually all of the period from around 125 million to about 75,000 years ago, CO2 levels were markedly higher than now.”
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html
“Around 9,000 to 5,000 years ago the earth was much warmer than today; perhaps 4deg.F hotter, about the average of the various predictions for global warming after a doubling of CO2.[59] Although the climate cooled a bit after 3000 B.C., it stayed relatively warmer than the modern world until sometime after 1000 B.C., when chilly temperatures became more common. During this Climatic Optimum epoch, Europe enjoyed mild winters and warm summers with a storm belt far to the north. Not only was the country less subject to severe storms, but the skies were less cloudy and the days sunnier.”
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html
“The Southern Hemisphere seems to have flourished as well during the warm millennia after the most recent Ice Age. Professor Lamb reports that the southern temperate zone enjoyed both warmer weather and more moisture than it does currently.[68] Scholars have found that Australia was consistently wetter than today in both the tropical and temperate regions.[69] Since the end of that epoch, the great deserts of Australia have expanded and the climate has become both cooler and drier. Apparently most of the other great desert regions of the world enjoyed more rainfall during the Climatic Optimum than they do now.”
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html
“From the end of the Optimum period of sustained warmth until around 800 A.D. to 900 A.D., what we know of the world’s climate and, in particular, the European varied between periods of warmth and cold. Based on the height of the upper tree lines in middle latitudes’ mountains, the temperature record following the peak warm period around 5000 B.C. demonstrates a more or less steady decline right up to the 20th century.[86] As mentioned above, tree ring data for New Zealand indicate that after temperatures reached a maximum around 6000 to 8000 B.C., the climate cooled in that part of the world.”
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html
“Written records confirm that the warmer climate brought drier and consequently healthier conditions to much of Europe. Robert Bartlett, citing H.E. Hallam in Settlement and Society, quotes the people of Holland who invaded Lincolnshire in 1189 that “because their own marsh had dried up, they converted them into good and fertile ploughland.”[118] Moreover, prior to the twelfth century German settlers on the east side of the Elbe frequently named their towns with mar, which meant marsh, but later colonists did not use that suffix. Bartlett’s explanation is that the term had gone out of use, but an alternative one is that the warmer climate had dried up the marshes.[119]
With a more pleasant climate people spent longer periods outdoors; food supplies were more reliable. Even the homes of the peasants would have become warmer and less damp. The draining or drying up of marshes and wetlands reduced the breeding grounds for mosquitoes that brought malaria. In all the infant and childhood mortality rate must have fallen spawning an explosion in population.”
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html
Really good info – but RELEVANT facts PLEASE.
1. The BASIC science is clear – if CO2 increases, the Earth will warm
2. The speed at which CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere is unprecidented
3. The Antarctic ice sheet probably starting forming when CO2 levels were around 600ppm
4. What do you think will happen to the Antarctic ice sheet if the CO2 in the atmosphere exceeds 600PPM for a century or two?
http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/antarctic-glaciation-linked-to-ancient-co2-levels/
Scientists have long proposed a link between climate change and CO2 atmospheric levels. A recent paper published in Science by Yale Geology and Geophysics Professor Mark Pagani strengthens the argument that CO2 levels and temperature are closely related. Pagani and his collaborators demonstrated that the rapid glaciation of Antarctica near the Eocene/Oligocene boundary, which occurred approximately 34 millions year ago, correlated with atmospheric CO2 levels falling by approximately 40%. More importantly, their findings corroborated a model of glaciation proposed by fellow paleoclimatologist Robert DeConto; that model emphasizes the rapid decline of CO2 as the primary factor for the continental glaciation.
The massive freezing 34 million years ago was one of the most severe climate reorganizations in Earth’s history. In a span of 80,000 years, Antarctica transformed from a warm, ice-free continent to a frozen, glaciated land resembling what it is today. In order to determine ancient CO2 levels, Pagani and his team analyzed the isotope composition of carbon from deep-sea cores sampled from around the world. “Deep sea temperature can be calculated from a chemical signature that is embedded in alkenones, a class of organic molecules produced by photosynthetic organisms at the surface of the sea,” explained Pagani. Ultimately, he believes that this study provides even more reason to be concerned that current CO2 levels are the highest that they have been in over 5 million years.
The team found the tipping point in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for cooling that initiates ice sheet formation is about 600 parts per million. Prior to the levels dropping this low, it was too warm for the ice sheet to form. At the Earth’s current level of around 390 parts per million, the environment is such that an ice sheet remains, but carbon dioxide levels and temperatures are increasing. The world will likely reach levels between 550 and 1,000 parts per million by 2100. Melting an ice sheet is a different process than its initiation, and it is not known what level would cause the ice sheet to melt away completely, Huber said.
Enviro: It would be a great learning experience for you to watch these two YouTube presentations. They explain what actually controls the earth’s climate and it is not a trace gas, CO2, that makes up .036% of the atmosphere and is one and one half times heavier than “air”. If you alarmist do not have that, CO2, then what do you have to try to control and tax humanity with? I will, when I close this out and I am beginning to weary of this nonsenses that you put forth that you act like sane and rational people are suppose to believe, present you with the reasons why there are some that want to use this anthropogenic hoax to gain the control and also to make huge sums of money using it. The welfare of the earth or its inhabitants is not their concern, only the control and the wealth to be gained by a few is the main aim and why some sheep who are not in on the rewards would support it is a clear sign of, not so much of ignorance, but of stupidity.
“Jasper Kirkby is head of the CLOUD Experiment at the CERN Laboratories in Geneva, Switzerland. This lecture is part of Simon Fraser University’s 2011 global warming seminar series “Global Warming: A Science Perspective”.
The “warmists” of the IPCC rely on computer simulations of the climate of the earth. They put in what is known, and for what is unknown, they put in approximations or, less politely, guesses. There’s just a lot that is unknown about climate.
“This is an exact inversion of the scientific method, which says that evidence always trumps theory. The IPCC is throwing away the evidence for a solar-magnetic driver of climate because it isn’t satisfied with the theories that have been proposed to account for it. This is the definition of anti-science: putting theory (or ideology, or anything) over evidence. Evidence has to be the trump card, or it’s not science. The IPCC is engaged in pure, definitional, anti-science, precisely inverting the scientific method.” IPCC Reviewer Alex Rawls
The “deniers” not only deny that global warming is a problem, they deny that it is happening. The “Skeptics“ think that global warming is probably a natural process, for the earth is always warming and cooling, but they depend on evidence, and there is just a lot that we don’t know. The largest and most important of the “greenhouse gasses ” is water vapor, or clouds. We know they have a big effect on climate, but we don’t know much about what and how. That’s why they call them skeptics.”
http://americanelephant.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/jasper-kirkby-the-head-of-the-cloud-experiment/
These are some very smart people, Enviro, and the best part of it is that they, unlike Hansen, Gore and many others in your camp, they are HONEST.
Jasper Kirkby: The CLOUD experiment at CERN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=63AbaX1dE7I#at=2744
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0&feature=related
The CLOUD experiment at CERN is very interesting – thanks for the link! The cosmic ray/temp correlation was also interesting – but showed that there was little overall change over the time periods. My biggest “take aways” from the video are (1) due to the changes in the sun, the earth should be cooling, and (2) that they are very unsure of their data. Which is a point I’d like to make. Based on physics, if the CO2 in the atmosphere were doubled instantaneously, the temperature would increase about 3 degrees C if OTHER FORCINGS (other than water vapor) WERE HELD CONSTANT (this is the definition of “climate sensitivity”) But of courses “other forcings” won’t be constant. Therefore the most important debate we need to have is about what the “climate sensitivity” is. If it’s low, we’re probably OK. And if it’s really high, we’re screwed. Since it’s impossible to know accurately, we need to agree on a “probability distribution function” that describes the probability that the climate sensitivity is a specific value. We also need to agree on how much risk we’re willing to take that the we might be wrong (which is what insurance if for, and doing some things to reduce CO2 is like insurance)
Could part of the confusion that Enviro manifest have to do with no one denying that there is a green house effect or there would not be life on earth as we know it but that effect is caused by water vapor which makes up 95% of the green house effect. I see nothing in the reports that I have looked at that even mention CO2 like Enviro wants to believe is part of the equation that CERN is discovering about the earth’s climate.
“The first results from the lab’s CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets”) experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth’s clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.
This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.”
“When Dr Kirkby first described the theory in 1998, he suggested cosmic rays “will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/
Sorry to hear that you are so confused by simple science.
Let me review your logic:
1. Sunspots affect cosmic rays hitting the earth
2. The fewer the sunspots, the more cosmic rays (current situation)
3. Cosmic rays influence clouds
4. The more cosmic rays, the more clouds
5. The more clouds, the more cooling
6. The earth should be cooling (like what happened during the Maunder minimum)
So what has not only negated the expected cooling but also caused the warming?
I think you have the “honest” part backwards. I’d really like to see a breakdown on which scientists mislead, misinform, are unwilling to acknowledge errors in publications, etc.. In this list I’d put Lindzen (based on hs WSJ articles and personal experience with a presentation that he gave that contained a lot of misleading information, as I disovered later), Lomborg (see “The Lomborg Conspiracy”), Patrick Michaels, etc. It seems that only “deniers” are on the list.
Why do you think that Hansen and Gore are not honest? What facts have they distorted? Do they cherry pick data?
Enviro: Try to come up with some more of your conjecture to answer this assertion; so far about everything that you have presented has been preposterous, but keep trying and maybe you will, by chance, come up with something that is valid.
“In contrast to this Who’s Who of the scientific world, the list of top global-warming scientists falls far short. No scientist has been awarded a Nobel Prize in a science field for his work on global warming because no piece of science in the field has achieved a major scientific breakthrough. This despite the global-warming issue’s dominance of the scientific world for more than two decades, garnering the lion’s share of scientific funding and an inordinate amount of coverage in scientific publications. The only Nobel Prize conferred on global-warming advocates came from the political wing of the Nobel Prize establishment, which awarded them a prize for peace in consolation for their failure to merit a prize for science.”
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/09/16/lawrence-solomon-warmed-right-over/
As you know, the Nobel Peace Prize is a political award and not a scientific award because it is presented in Oslo, where I have been as well as to Stockholm and the City Hall that awards the SCIENCE prizes.
I saw where Irena Sendler had recently died. She had helped to save thousands of Jewish children from certain death during the Nazi occupation of Warsaw during WWII, and obviously risked her own life to do so & was beaten severely by the Gestapo but didn’t give up any secrets. You wonder what this has to do with anything and it is this, she had been considered for the Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore and his cronies when they won said prize. But one must remember that Jimmy Carter won it in 2002 and Yassar Arafat also shared the “prize” in 1994 and now we have Obama wining it . I think that due to the recent past recipients of the prize, the prestige of it has diminished to the point that it about like buying the Sunday New York Times and finding that the comics are still included. In other words the Swedes should take back control of this before it is tarnished further by the Norwegians who seem to have lost touch of what the prize was intended to honor.
So? If the AWG crowd is correct, doing someting that can reaily have an effect on future warming will certainly be saving countless lives.
Doug –
Re “Lindzen, Richard S.” – many of his stands on climate change are disupted by most climate scientists. But the real issue is that do you think Lindzen is 100% correct? What if he is wrong?
Yes, I know that he is 100% correct and it is you that is 100% in the dark regarding this whole issue. The list that I supplied shows that what the people say shows that humans and the earth is not their concern. It is control and money that drives them and that is evil, to say the least.
You are so naive as to think that anyone could be 100% correct on climate change. As I’ve said, I personally attended a meeting where he dished out mis-information on purpose – not someone I’d trust. “control and money” drives the fossil fuel disinformation campaign, not the worldwide scientific organizations. Here’s the relevant cartoon again:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/climateinfographic.jpg
Re – “Climategate ‘hide the decline’” – when are you ever going to start thinking for yourself?
In what is probably the most notorious of the CRU emails, dated 16/11/1999, Jones wrote:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
This email is often quoted by commentators with little or no understanding of what it refers to, so it is worth taking some time to explain the context. Jones was discussing a graph for the cover of an obscure 1999 World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) report, which depicted both instrumental temperature data and reconstructed temperatures based on tree rings. The “decline” refers to the fact that some tree ring series (though not all) diverge from instrumental records in recent decades, for reasons that are not fully understood (although there are grounds for believing it is only a recent phenomenon). The “trick” was a way of presenting the data in this one particular graph, namely to truncate the tree ring data at the point when it diverged.
Anyway, contrarians take the use of the words “trick” and “hide the decline” as evidence that this was done to deceive, and this was the allegation that the inquiry examined. More generally, the contrarians claim that the divergence problem “may not have been properly taken into account when expressing the uncertainty associated with reconstructions”.
Contrarians have also accused CRU researchers (in particular their leading expert on tree ring reconstructions, Keith Briffa) of cherry-picking tree ring series that would produce a favoured result, namely that the late 20th century was warmer than the Medieval Warm Period. They allege that Briffa’s selection of an obscure tree ring chronology from the Yamal peninsula in Siberia “had an undue influence on all of the lines appearing in Chapter 6 of the 4th IPCC Report” (AR4); and that CRU withheld access to the Yamal data. And they use all these alleged flaws in CRU’s work to claim that less confidence should be placed in the conclusions of that AR4 chapter (specifically, the conclusion that current temperatures are likely the warmest in 13 centuries).
Regarding the “hide the decline” email, Jones has explained that when he used the word “trick”, he simply meant “a mathematical approach brought to bear to solve a problem”. The inquiry made the following criticism of the resulting graph (its emphasis):
[T]he figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain — ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text. [1.3.2]
But this was one isolated instance that occurred more than a decade ago. The Review did not find anything wrong with the overall picture painted about divergence (or uncertainties generally) in the literature and in IPCC reports. The Review notes that the WMO report in question “does not have the status or importance of the IPCC reports”, and concludes that divergence “is not hidden” and “the subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers.” [1.3.2]
Enviro: “When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
“In an odd way this is cheering news.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Strange way of expressing grief over some one that you may not agree with, don’t you think Enviro? I have no idea what the message is that you are trying to put forth with this stupid post regarding it such as this little nugget of BS: “Regarding the “hide the decline” email, Jones has explained that when he used the word “trick”, he simply meant “a mathematical approach brought to bear to solve a problem”. The inquiry made the following criticism of the resulting graph (its emphasis)” Aren’t you intelligent enough to realize that it was the release of these emails by the Russians that derailed the phony little climate get together in Copenhagen? It was not the bitter cold weather in both Europe or the US at the time but these emails and now you want to try to explain them in some irrational way, Good Load.
Do you recall that after Obama, using all of that jet fuel going to and returning from this farce, had to take a car back to the Whitehouse because of the blizzard that kept the chopper, that uses fossil fuel, from flying?
So what? Climate scientists are only human. And CRU scientists have been vindicated many times over:
An independent report into the leak of hundreds of e-mails from one of the world’s leading climate research centers on Wednesday largely vindicated the scientists involved, saying they acted honestly and that their research was reliable.
The Department of Commerce has released an Inspector General’s report on the involvement of its scientists (e.g., scientists in NOAA) in “ClimateGate”–and once again, it’s a vindication: “In our review of the CRU emails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the GHCN-M dataset [maintained by the National Climatic Data Center] or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures.”
And their results still stand. Which is the most important fact.
Enviro: Read this in the Daily Mail and explain why you posted the garbage you did about Climategate.
“Yes, emails came from here – but we didn’t do it, say Russians
Tomsk: Emails were sent from this Siberian town
Russian secret service agents admitted yesterday that the hacked ‘Warmergate’ emails were uploaded on a Siberian internet server, but strenuously denied a clandestine state-sponsored operation to wreck the Copenhagen summit.”
Some of the most controversial leaked emails concern attempts by Jones and his colleagues to avoid disclosure of the CRU’s temperature database – its vast library of readings from more than 1,000 weather stations around the world, the ultimate resource that records how temperatures have changed.
In one email from 2005, Jones warned Mann not to leave such data lying around on searchable websites, because ‘you never know who is trawling them’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html#ixzz1UuOjrdU9
So what?
The “Hockey Stick” has been validated over and over again. It was affirmed in a major review by the National Academy of Scientists (in media-speak, the highest scientific “court” in the land) . The Hockey Stick has been replicated and strengthened by numerous independent studies. It turns out that there are “hockey sticks” for sea level rise, ocean acidification, ocean temps, ice melting, etc.
EN: What follows that the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) were doing sounds as dishonest as most of what you post to this thread.
“Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Do some more research – the latest thinking is that the MWP was local, not gobal.
I don’t think I’ve made a single dishonest post. I stick to RELEVANT facts. Many of yours are irrelevant or bogus.
Even if the above quote is accurate and not out of context, there is overwhelming HONEST data that shows that there MAY be serious consequence to climate change.
Re “So much for your crying about the ice disappearing in the arctic.” – please see
Sure, climate is variable and parts of the artic have melted before. So what? Most climate scientsts think that the melting is unprecedented in the
Oldest Arctic Sea Ice is Disappearing
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=77270
A just published scientific paper, (Kinnard [2011]) shows that the present rate of melt in the Arctic summer is unprecedented in the last 1,450 years. (which is far back as sea ice extent can reasonbly be determined) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html
EN: Do you understand anything? Did you not open the post I presented about the Arctic in the 1920s? “The source report of the Washington Post article on changes in the arctic has been found in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922.”
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/200389-Flashback-1922-Extra-Extra-Read-all-about-it-Arctic-Ocean-Getting-Warm-Seals-Perish-Glaciers-and-Icebergs-Melt-
Evidently that goes right over your head or you are just incapable of understanding anything that interferes with your extremely narrow view of this subject and by your posting a bunch of political nonsense, you show that you can’t even focus on what that subject is.
“The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
Here is another one that MAY interest you and cause you to fabricate some other fairy tale to explain it.
“The photo Al Gore and the global warming wackos don’t want you to see” (Are you one of them, Enviro?)
by editor on May 4, 2009
“Al Gore is not going to like this photo. Not at all. It’s a 1958 shot of the U.S.S. Skate, the first submarine to surface at the North Pole. In case you missed the significance of that sentence, let us hammer it home.
It’s 1958. That’s the North Pole. There’s no ice. Gore and his global warming brethren have repeatedly told us that the ice has never been as thin in the arctic as it is today, but this photo tells another story. It’s pretty clear that in 1958 the arctic was…well…pretty clear.
Not only did the the Skate surface in virtually ice-free water at the North Pole, but the weather was mild enough that crewmen went out to chip a bit of ice off the sub’s hull.”
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/photo-north-pole-submarine
No cherry-picking!!! RELEVANT facts please!!!!!!
These is the RELEVANT facts:
Oldest Arctic Sea Ice is Disappearing
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=77270
A just published scientific paper, (Kinnard [2011]) shows that the present rate of melt in the Arctic summer is unprecedented in the last 1,450 years. (which is far back as sea ice extent can reasonbly be determined) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html
Doug –
Re “Do you still think that Greenland is melting into the sea?” . So they have a record cold day in Greenland. So what? Everything I read show that Greenland is losing ice at an accelerating rate. Again you are confusing WEATHER with CLIMATE
EN. So much for your fear of the Greenland ice sheet sliding into the ocean, it did not do so during the Medieval Warm Period so why it do so now? Do not accuse me of being confused when you do not know enough about this subject of agw to even be that, you are just wrong. You anthropogenic alarmist have a lot of trouble with the Medieval Warm Period and the proven Little Ice age because all of it all happened with no anthropogenic influence, what so ever.
Can you explain how the last ice age started and then began to end about 12,000 years ago with no human cause? This was and is the reason that Mann is having such a time explaining his Hockey Stick hoax that Gore helped him push because he didn’t show the known warm and cold periods in recent global climatic history and that makes them out to be dishonest.
“What was learned
The eight researchers reporat you can not explain, is it?that the average Greenland snow temperature over the past 4000 years was -30.7°C, while the current decadal (2001-2010) surface temperature at the Greenland Summit is -29.9°C, which they say is as warm as it was there in the 1930s-1940s. And they add that “there was another similarly warm period (-29.7°C) in the 1140s (Medieval Warm Period), indicating that the present decade is not outside the envelope of variability of the last 1000 years.” And, even more telling, prior to the last millennium they report “there were 72 decades warmer than the present one, in which mean temperatures were 1.0 to 1.5°C warmer.” In fact, they found that “during two intervals (~1300 BP and ~3360 BP) centennial average temperatures were nearly 1.0°C warmer (-28.9°C) than the present decade.”
What it means
Clearly, there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about Greenland’s recent relative warmth, as it is clear that much warmer temperatures have been experienced there over many prior prolonged periods without any help from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Hence, there is no valid reason to believe that mankind’s burning of coal, gas and oil has had, or is having, any measureable impact on the climate of that part of the world, or any other part of the planet.”
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N11/C3.php
You are so confused! No one expects Greenland to “slide into the ocean” anytime soon (where “soon” is “human time”) – perhaps in 300-1000 years.
The “Medieval Warm Period” was “local”, not “global” – please review the latest research.
The “Hockey Stick” has been validated over and over again. It was affirmed in a major review by the National Academy of Scientists (in media-speak, the highest scientific “court” in the land) . The Hockey Stick has been replicated and strengthened by numerous independent studies. It turns out that there are “hockey sticks” for sea level rise, ocean acidification, ocean temps, ice melting, permafrost melting, etc.
The latest theories on the causes of the ice ages have to do with the orbit of the earth. It’s amazing how just a small different in the intensity of sunlight hitting North America can have such a tremendous impact!
And please don’t reference anything on the CO2 Science Web site – I took a quick look earlier this morning and there science is REALLY bad and very one-sided.
You tell me this after directing me to “Time Magazine” that will be lucky if they can get the one dollar that Sidney Harman paid for “NewsweeK” when he got the rag from Washington Post Company. “Time” would not find a buyer at any price and it does show that some of the far left rags are worth nothing because no one reads them.
Don’t “shoot the messanger” if you don’t like what they have to say. Just look for RELEVANT facts. The “Hockey Stick” has been validated over and over again – what’s your problem with accepting the facts? The “Medieval Warm Period” was “local”, not “global” – what’s your problem with accepting the facts?
Doug –
Re “Notice the key word here, Enviro, Meteorologist ?” – Again you are confusing WEATHER with CLIMATE
re your link http://www.sott.net/articles/show/201362-Cooked-US-government-s-central-role-in-fudging-the-data-behind-global-warming- could not find the original article, but did find this:Joseph D’Aleo and his Technically Flawed Report (Page 1) http://climatewtf.blogspot.com/2010/01/joseph-daleo-and-his-technically-flawed.html
Re “Record Low Temperatures in the United States” – no one ever said that we’d not see any more record lows with climate change. What’s important is the trend between record lows and record highs
Record high temperatures far outpace record lows across U.S.
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/1036/record-high-temperatures-far-outpace-record-lows-across-us
Re weather –
On Wednesday, March 14th, 577 temperature records were broken in a single day, 400 of them new record highs around the country.
One day of such statisics is weather. Years of having more record highs than lows is climate.
This looked interesting:
Most observers would say Ann Coulter is pretty extreme as conservatives go. In the wake of Fukushima, she said radiation is “good for you.” She has said she would tell a gay son that “he was adopted” and then ask him for redecorating tips. She pushes the well-debunked myth Obama attended a radical Islamic madrassa.
So when she says the conservative movement has “a problem with con men and charlatans,” you know things have gotten way out of hand. Yet here she is at a local Republican party dinner in Florida, answering a question about the prospect of a brokered convention:
And just a more corporate problem is I think our party and particularly our movement, the conservative movement, does have more of a problem with con men and charlatans than the Democratic Party…. The incentives seem to be set up to allow people … as long as you have a band of a few million fanatical followers, you can make money….
Watch it:
Barry Bickmore, a geochemistry professor at Brigham Young University, who describes himself as “an active Republican” who “was a County Delegate for the Republican Party” from 2008-2010, agrees with Coulter:
This is nowhere more evident than in the climate policy debate. The Republican Party is beset by “con men and charlatans” whose specialty is to convince people that there is no climate change problem. And why do we believe them? Because for people who think we should try to solve problems with as little government regulation as possible, it’s always easier to deny there is a problem at all….
And so we desperately want to believe that big problems are overblown or nonexistent. Whenever a group of people “desperately wants to believe” something, there will always be someone willing to tell them what they want to hear, whether the opportunists are charlatans or simply nutjobs.
The question is whether the conservative movement can reject the charlatans and embrace science in time to enable us to prevent catastrophic global warming.
(the above from http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/15/445436/ann-coulter-gop-conservative-movement-has-problem-with-con-men-and-charlatans)
Another interesting read:
Washington Post stunner: “The GOPs climate-change denial may be its most harmful delusion.”
Hiatt has today published an amazing op-ed, “On climate change, the GOP is lost in never-never land,” that I’ll excerpt below:
The Republican self-deception that draws the most attention is the refusal to believe that Barack Obama is American-born.
But there are Republican doctrinal fantasies that may be more dangerous: the conviction that taxes can always go down, but never up, for example, and the gathering consensus among Republican leaders that human-caused climate change does not exist….
The climate change denialism is a newer part of the catechism. Just a few years ago, leading Republicans “” John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty among them “” not only accepted global warming as real but supported some kind of market-based mechanism to raise the cost of burning fossil fuels.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/04/18/207916/washington-post-hiatt-gop-climate-change-denial/
Enviro
When you take 150 years and divide it up into 54,750 slices (150 x 365) it is common to have new spikes, both high and low, in those slices.
You make it sound like some calamity to report a new high in one of the 54,750 slices.
And your argument that we only have recorded weather for 150 years is laughable. We have detailed accounts of the weather recorded in rocks, ice samples, etc. Peak temperature recordings, both high and low, are essentially noise. It is the overall climate change that needs to be examined.
RE “Peak temperature recordings, both high and low, are essentially noise. It is the overall climate change that needs to be examined.” Right on!! One or two year peaks CAN be ignored. But not 13 years of peak temperatures.
Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1°F.
The Earth’s surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.29ºF/decade or 2.9°F/century.
Now that’s CLIMATE!
A great blog post this morning- “Weather and Climate” By the University at Albany’s Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences Dept.. I’ve posted an extract below. I recomment reading the entire post at http://blog.timesunion.com/weather/engaging-in-a-climate-change-discourse/2086/#comment-3716
First of all I think it is important to always point out that climate change science is not something new that has just emerged over the past few years or decades. We have known for over 150 years … that greenhouse gases in our atmosphere keep our planet warm through absorption of longwave radiation and that increasing this concentration will further warm our planet. Hence the thousands of climate scientists around the globe are not, as some will have it, all engaged in a massive conspiracy, but climate change is instead based on a theoretical framework that was established in the 19th century.
Therefore climate scientists who work and publish on aspects of climate change do not disagree about the fact that humans are major contributors to climate change and have the ability to both warm and cool our planet, by changing land surface characteristics or the chemical composition of our atmosphere.
“Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Why do you selectively believe nonesense on the Web?
The “Hockey Stick” has been validated over and over again. It was affirmed in a major review by the National Academy of Scientists (in media-speak, the highest scientific “court” in the land) . The Hockey Stick has been replicated and strengthened by numerous independent studies. It turns out that there are “hockey sticks” for sea level rise, ocean acidification, ocean temps, ice melting.
Mann’s hockey stick has never been validated. How can it be if it does not show known periods of what the earth’s climate experienced in the recent past, recent because of the 4.5 billion years of the earth’s existence, when there was the Roman Warm period, The Medieval Warm period followed by the Little Ice Age? Your selective memory and picking of flawed sources is amazing. You seem to like Wikipedia, I do not, but here is something from that source to attempt to give you a certain degree of validity to your misconceptions.
“The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, including in China,[1] New Zealand,[2] and other countries lasting from about AD 950 to 1250. It was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic termed the Little Ice Age.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period>
“picking of flawed sources “? The National Academy of Scientists is a “flawed source”? Why aren’t you willing to accept the facts?
Re ““The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region,” – glad you got your facts right! But some other parts of the world were cooler, and the average GLOBAL temperatures then were not as high as they are now.
“But some other parts of the world were cooler, and the average GLOBAL temperatures then were not as high as they are now.” EV: Where do dream up this type of nonsense? Do you think that for 300 years just Northern Europe was blessed with this warm period and I say “blessed” because warm is better than cold any day, if you are alive. I wonder why you can not understand that simple FACT.
Doug-
You might try looking at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e2GlooAPkM&feature=player_embedded
Michael Mann: The Hockey Stick Under Oath (8 minutes – hearings before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, in July of 2006.)
Montana’s Annual Temp for 2008 was 41.9 F., .2 deg F cooler than the MT annual 1901 – 2000 Average of 42.14 deg F. Global CO2 levels keep rising, but temp average is the same. Also, precipitation was also slightly above average for MT. The alarmist model does not fit the data, but that doesn’t matter to those who want to take your money or. Here are some examples.
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” – Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
“We require a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change – these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” – Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (This is the same SOB that is partnered up with Al Gore, whose company, Generation Investment Management, which is now worth over $200 million. Strong spends most of his time in China, the worst polluter on the planet, (CO2 is not a pollutant but an essential ingredient for life on earth). & he is doing what he can to make this communist country the world’s next superpower.)
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” – Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” – Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” – Professor Maurice King
“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” – Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” – Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.” – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” -Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.” – Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” – Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.” – John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” – Christopher Manes, Earth First!
“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” – David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
Does this sound like these people have humanities best interest at heart or even the planet’s, for that matter, ENVIRO?
Some of them are whackos – but so what? I know the majority of climate scientists DO “have humanities best interest at heart” – that’s why they are trying to get the public to understand the POTENTIAL consequences of climate change.
EV: You have forgotten the main aim of your wackos and any one that believes in this hoax is that is the control factor and the money to be made from taxing something that is essential for life on earth, CO2. Your flawed thought process, if you have one, keeps you from seeing that a minor bureaucrat such as Hansen makes over 1.2 million dollars a year off of this hoax and this comes after he decried being “muzzled” by Bush while giving hundreds of public address on the subject. This reinforces the reason to believe that he is nothing more than an unprincipled liar, as is any one that puts forth that CO2 controls something as complex as the earth’s climate if they have the intelligence of a ST. Bernard puppy and know that it can not do so. Gore had about two million dollars when he left office and now, because of CO2, is worth in excess of one-hundred million and what has he done to serve humanity to gain this kind of reward? Nothing. Remember, EV. this is the same charlatan that claimed the ocean levels would be up to the steps of the Empire State Building in a few years and then he feels comfortable spending some of his ill gotten gain buying beach property in California. Sorry, EV, this kind of hypocrisy
makes me sick but it is something that you seem to admire and that tells much about the type of person that you are.
You really like to distort history! The “muzzling” of Hansen was unprecedented – NASA staffers denied his request to do a National Public Radio interview because they didn’t want his message to get out. He certailny gave lots of public addresses, but that’s because he’s very concerned about AGW.
I begin to wonder sometimes if there is someone controlling your mind – you just seem incapable of accepting “inconvenient truths”. No one is saying “CO2 controls something as complex as the earth’s climate “, but they are saying “CO2 influences the earth’s climate”. If you don’t accept the science at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12877&page=83, please give me a reason other than it doesn’t make sense to you.
More about Lindzen:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation-from-lindzen/#more-11099
Richard Lindzen is a very special character in the climate debate – very smart, high profile, and with a solid background in atmospheric dynamics. He has, in times past, raised interesting critiques of the mainstream science. None of them, however, have stood the test of time – but exploring the issues was useful. More recently though, and especially in his more public outings, he spends most of his time misrepresenting the science and is a master at leading people to believe things that are not true without him ever saying them explicitly.
(The article ends with)
Such a cavalier attitude to analysing and presenting data probably has some lessons for how seriously one should take Lindzen’s comments. I anticipate with interest Lindzen’s corrections of this in future presentations and his apology for misleading his audience last month.
Another Web page that I just discovered – the “Real Climate Wiki” –
If the “deniers” thought that the published articles supporting AGW were flawed, wouldn’t they have a similar site pointing out the alleged flaws?
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki
It is primarily an index for debunking of various popular media occurrences of climate-related nonsense. Articles are sorted by where they appear (outlet and country), or alphabetically by author. Under each article you will find links to rebuttals of specific arguments and overall critiques of the pieces. This is by no means comprehensive, but should provide a starting point for those interested in seeing why these pieces are wrong. We do not include mainstream journalist pieces that are occasionally mistaken or somewhat sensationalist (see the main website for that kind of commentary), but we do include the op-ed pieces that are specifically designed to confuse, obfuscate and abuse the science.
EN: I spent 24 years in Alaska and during 13 of those years I was 140 miles above the arctic circle; therefore, I know something about cold, but more on that later. I also lived about nine years in South East Alaska and I had my boat into Glacier Bay on two separate occasions and to the face of the tidewater glaciers; therefore, I know much about this area and am amazed at what the sailors of the earlier days were able to do with only the wind and no charts in what is one big rock pile.
This applies to the dire warnings regarding melting glaciers: Keep in mind that Geo. Vancouver’s ships were wind powered; therefore, he wasn’t spewing out any diesel smoke to start this massive retreat of these glaciers. “The explorer Captain George Vancouver found Icy Strait, at the south end of Glacier Bay, choked with ice in 1794. Glacier Bay itself was almost entirely iced over. In 1879 naturalist John Muir found that the ice had retreated almost all the way up the bay. By 1916 the Grand Pacific Glacier was at the head of Tarr Inlet about 65 miles from Glacier Bay’s mouth. This is the fastest documented glacier retreat ever. Scientists are hoping to learn how glacial activity relates to climate changes and global warming from these retreating giants.
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/07/glacierbaymap.gif
Glacier Bay was first surveyed in detail in 1794 by a team from the H.M.S. Discovery, captained by George Vancouver. At the time the survey produced showed a mere indentation in the shoreline. That massive glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick in places, up to 20 miles wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias mountain range.
By 1879, however, naturalist John Muir discovered that the ice had retreated more than 30 miles forming an actual bay. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier – the main glacier credited with carving the bay – had melted back 60 miles to the head of what is now Tarr Inlet. http://www.glacierbay.org/geography.html
EN: You should take the time to read the Raina report;
http://gbpihed.gov.in/MoEF%20Dissussion%20Paper%20on%20Himalayan%20Glaciers.pdf This is a good report on glaciers in the Indian Himalyian Mountains.
Cherry-picking again – picking one example to try to prove your point. Please do a little research and provide RELEVANT facts:
Expert: 99 percent of Alaska glaciers in decline
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27054785/ns/us_news-environment/t/expert-percent-alaska-glaciers-decline/#.T2Yd1Xm-18E
EV. You call what I presented “cherry-picking”. This FACT dates back to 1794 and is well documented. You are a fool and not even capable of “cherry-picking” and then you send me to a MSNBC site where one has as much of an opportunity to get the truth about anything as seeing a pig fly over head.
“While a few of Alaska’s large glaciers are advancing, 99 percent are retreating, the book, “Glaciers in Alaska,” states. The book was written by USGS research geologist Bruce Molina.” I will offer up one of your “so what” replies; like the one you gave when shown that your contention that certain organizations received no government money and that was shown to you to be just another one of your many lies on this subject that you have demonstrated each time you post that you know nothing about.
“A USGS project to photograph the glaciers of Montana’s Glacier National Park also showed significant retreat. Based on these photos and glacier recession rates, scientists predicted the park could lose its namesakes by 2030.” So What? They have been gone before and will perhaps be gone again.
“Greenland, which is covered by more ice than anywhere else in the world outside Antarctica, has also seen significant melt of its glaciers in recent decades.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27054785/ns/us_news-environment/t/expert-percent-alaska-glaciers-decline/#.T21HTNVsXY9
The glaciers have been in a steady decline since the last ice age ended, except during the global Little Ice Age when they advanced again. I know that you and Andrea Thompson are not smart enough to understand that when the Vikings were colonizing Greenland during the global Medieval Warm Period the glaciers there had receded farther than where they are now, but that doesn’t fit your delusional view of your demon, CO2, and it causing anthropogenic global warming (since that is no longer happening, now you simply call it climate change). You have no way to explain any anthropogenic influence for, first off, the ice age, the earth coming out of the ice age, the Roman Warm period, the Medieval Optimum, the Little Ice Age, etc. because there is none and now you try to create alarm over CO2 that is the necessary ingredient in the atmosphere for all life on earth because with out it there would be no plant life and with out plants, no animal life. THERE! Your have your RELEVANT FACTS and try to lie your way around them, which you will by presenting some garbage that some one associated with the demonstrated to be dishonest and self serving IPCC, NAS, NSF or any number of corrupted organizations put forth for your consumption and the consumption of anyone else that demonstrates that they to not possess logic or reasoning to determine this issue on their own.
“anthropogenic global warming” is still happening – just look at the trends- (1) the current trend – the decadal temperature increase, (2) all 13 of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1997, (3) the rate of increase of CO2 is unprecedented over millions of years (4) the present level of CO2 is higher than at any time during the last 800 thousand years, and (5) the science that explains it.
The melting of glaciers in Glacier National Park will not be important except for tourists. But the melting of glaciers in other parts of the world WILL have a great negative impact on millions of people.
The fact the Greenland used to greener is relevant to the extent that it shows how LOCAL climate can vary over hundreds of years. If the BASIC science of climate science weren’t so well understood, Id think there would a chance the we might not need to worry. But since GHGs make the Earth warm (which is why they are called GHGs) and GHGs are increasing due to human activities, I’ve very worried.
And just because there was no anthropogenic link to earlier climate variability does not mean that what’s happening now has no link – the atmosphere now is much different now from what it was then.
I would hardly call the IPCC, NAS and NSF “corrupted organizations”. Just because you don’t like their message is no excuse to disparage then. Again, this cartoon says it best:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/climateinfographic.jpg
Enviro: Read the Government’s EPA report which has been held back at;
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
The government’s own data shows that AGW is a scam, maybe that is why it has been held up?
You can also get to the pdf at this site by going to the bottom of the New York Times story and open the pdf. It would be well worth your while to read what the EPA report says.
Two EPA Staffers Question Science Behind Climate ‘Endangerment’ Proposal
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/26/26greenwire-two-epa-staffers-question-science-behind-clima-89720.html
Just one disenting voice does not prove anything. If you look closely at the “five recent developments” you will find cherry-picking and irrelevant facts – nothing to dispute the basic settled science of global warming from CO2.
“A near-record snowfall this winter has buried Anchorage neighborhoods, turning streets into snow-walled canyons and even collapsing some roofs.
But some residents are hoping for more, at least another 3.3 inches. Then they could say they made it through the winter when the nearly 60-year record of 132.6 inches was broken.”
Naturally when there is an idiot like this giving the report there is bound to be some editorializing going on.
“AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.”
“When you start to see the extreme events become more common, that’s when you can say that it is a consequence of global warming,” University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver said.” Yea sure, you bet, and all of the other nonsense that goes with the “news” as Borenstein reports it.
http://billingsgazette.com/news/national/alaska-s-largest-city-eyes-snow-record/article_e39e6006-c5db-518b-91c3-46d6e52513ed.html
I see that these fools discount totally that it will be a record that has stood for nearly 60 years that may be broken.
You are confusing WEATHER with CLIMATE.
Re: “Show one experiment carried out that makes what you claim above about a trace gas, CO2, that makes up a scant .036% of the atmosphere and is 1 &1/2 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere the driver of something as complex as the earth’s climate.”
Actually very simple:
1. Shine an incandescent light (lot of infrared radiation – otherwise known as “heat”)
2. Take a movie of the light in the infrared range
3. Put a bottle of nitrogen and oxygen between the light and the camera
4. Start the camera
5. Add a little CO2 to the bottle (only a tiny bit is needed)
6. Watch the incredible reduction infrared radiation that the movie captures
This proves that CO2 blocks infrared radiation.
Next calculate the infrared radiation emitted by the earth and calculate how much radiation the CO2 in the atmosphere blocks. Because the earth must remain in “energy balance” with the sun’s energy, the temperature of the earth must increase to compensate for the blocked radiation, because emitting infrared radiation is the way the energy balance is maintained.
You should also look at:
1. The Biggest Control Knob: CO2 in Earth’s Climate History
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1453
2. CO2 is the biggest climate control knob
http://www.globalchangeblog.com/2010/10/co2-is-the-biggest-climate-control-knob/
Because CO2, O3, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) do not condense and
precipitate, noncondensing GHGs constitute the key 25% of the radiative forcing that supports and sustains the entire terrestrial greenhouse effect, the remaining 75% coming as fast feedback contributions from water vapor and clouds.
From the foregoing, it is clear that CO2 is the key atmospheric gas that exerts principal control over the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect. Water vapor and clouds are fast-acting feedback effects, and as such are controlled by the radiative forcings supplied by the noncondensing GHGs.
RELAVENT facts please! Can you provide a link to any reputable climate scientist that does not agree with the above?
Your “experiment” with CO2 is totally meaningless because you are approximating the amount of this CO2 that is heavier than oxygen and nitrogen that is present in the atmosphere & the atmosphere is made up of 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, (99.03% of the atmosphere is made up of these two gases) and now you are saying that to these “known”?? amounts of gas you will add CO2 that makes up .036% of the total atmosphere, How stupid can you be to imagine that you will be able to introduce such a minute amount of CO2 to your “mix” that is probably made up of unknown quantities of the main gases?
How many different ways must one explain it to try to get you to understand the insignificance of CO2 in the total atmosphere, especially since you fail to understand that, it being 1 & 1/2 times heavier than the rest of that atmosphere, it settles out of the of the column of air as altitude increases? If there is 53% of the O2 available at 18,000 feet, then tell me what the percentage of CO2 there is at this altitude.
“Let’s picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO2 compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 metres high (1063ft). If the hight of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO2 would be 8.75 centimetres of that hight (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimetres (1.5 inches)”
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/co2-the-basic-facts
EN: I certainly wish that you had proposed your “experiment” to me earlier, like say four years ago. I could have taken identical containers to Everest Base Camp, the one in Nepal, when I was there in 2008, I could have taken the same type of container to Thorung La Pass, (17,769 FT) that is highest trekking pass in the world, on the Annapurna circuit, I could have had the identical type container last September when I spent eight days going up Kilimanjaro, and also would have had the same identical container the last time I was back to Wyoming where I was born and raised and went over Togwotee Pass (9,658 FT) and on the continental divide. I would have opened these identical, seal able containers and taken ambient air samples, being very careful to not breath any CO2 into the sample, sealed them and together with the sea level sample from where I am at now on the Andaman Sea at Krabi and had the test done that you described with your light by some independent agency and see just what the results were. I would venture to say that there would be no sign of any; “incredible reduction infrared radiation that the movie captures” and a difference in the images taken with the camera when the samples were all exposed to the same test. This for sure would be a more valid test that the nonsense that you propose.
Doug –
Your unwillingness to accept the science continues to amaze me. Instead of conducting flawed “thought experiments”, just look at the results of real results!
In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:
Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. ‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).
What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
Can you provide a link to an actual experiment which shows that CO2 does not absorb enough infrared radiation to affect the earth’s temperature?
While we are focusing on Anchorage, AK.:
It is obvious EN, that the perhaps new record snowfall for Anchorage is not just an isolated occurrence as your kind would want one to believe. Yea, I know, since this is a cold event, it is weather; but, if it is warm event, then it is climate change.
Record Lows – 2008
Record Low Temperatures in the United States
RECORD OCTOBER COLD IN ANCHORAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE ANCHORAGE AK
RESIDENTS IN ANCHORAGE WILL AGREE THIS OCTOBER WAS A BIT COLDER THAN
USUAL. NOT ONLY WAS THE MONTH COLDER THAN NORMAL BUT THE AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE OF 29.6 DEGREES PLACED OCTOBER WITHIN THE TOP TEN
COLDEST OUT OF SOME 90 YEARS OF CLIMATE RECORDS FOR THE CITY.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2008.htm
You just don’t get it. The expectation is that with climate change there are apt to be more extreme events – both “cold” and “hot”, with “hot” predominating. And that appears to be what is happening. The media may try to promote “since this is a cold event, it is weather; but, if it is warm event, then it is climate change.”, but climate scientists do not.
This a long list of the views of people like Enviro and, as you will see, the earth, the climate or humans are not a prime concern of these people.
Control is their real aim and, if they do not have the anthropogenic factor that they need to get that from carbon dioxide, how will they gain this control over everything that you do because energy is at the heart of any advanced society?
Warmists ‘Want To Control Every Aspect Of Your Life’: ‘What you eat, what you drive, where you drive, what you believe, what you say, what you can own, how many children you can have…’
‘how much you can travel, how much money you have, what your kids are taught, how big your house is, the temperature of your house, how your house is heated, how far you live from your work, what kind of light bulbs and other appliances you have ……… Global warmers make Lenin’s Bolsheviks look like libertarians. In Soviet Russia, polar bears eat Bolsheviks’
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
http://www.green-agenda.com/>
“Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the
world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a
major catastrophe that could send our entire planet’s climate system
into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods,
droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have
ever experienced – a catastrophe of our own making.”
– Al Gore,
An Inconvenient Truth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“We are getting close to catastrophic tipping points,
despite the fact that most people barely notice the warming yet.”
– Dr James Hansen,
NASA researcher
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“By the end of this century climate change will reduce the human
population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
“Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty
to the international community and beginning to create a
new system of international environmental governance
as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises.”
– Lester Brown,
WorldWatch Institute
Revenge of Gaia
“Adopting a central organizing principle…
means embarking on an all-out effort to use every
policy and program, every law and institution…
to halt the destruction of the environment.”
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.”
– UN Agenda 21
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The current course of development is thus clearly unsustainable.
Current problems cannot be solved by piecemeal measures.
More of the same is not enough. Radical change from the
current trajectory is not an option, but an absolute necessity.
Fundamental economic, social and cultural changes that
address the root causes of poverty and environmental
degradation are required and they are required now.”
– from the Earth Charter website
“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,
which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
– David Brower,
founder of Friends of the Earth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism.
I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
– Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First!
“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place
for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and
plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams,
free shackled rivers and return to wilderness
millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive,
selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox,
vice-president of The Humane Society
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Human beings, as a species,
have no more value than slugs.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a
pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
Healing Gaia
“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a
pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
Healing Gaia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells;
the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.
We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to
the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many
apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich,
The Population Bomb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history,
but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in
the number of game animals and the need to adjust
the cull to the size of the surplus population.”
– Prince Philip,
preface of Down to Earth
“One America burdens the earth much more than
twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau,
UNESCO Courier
“The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon
the emergence of a new faith in the future.
Armed with such a faith, we might find
it possible to resanctify the earth.”
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The greatest hope for the Earth lies in religionists and
scientists uniting to awaken the world to its near fatal predicament
and then leading mankind out of the bewildering maze of
international crises into the future Utopia of humanist hope.”
– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“What an incredible planet in the universe this will be
when we will be one human family living in justice,
peace, love and harmony with our divine Earth,
with each other and with the heavens.”
– Robert Muller,
UN Assistant Secretary General
“The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on
her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human
species has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution….
Our salvation depends upon our ability
to create a religion of nature.”
– Rene Dubos,
board member, Planetary Citizens
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Each element, plant, insect, fish and animal
represents a certain aspect of Gaia’s – and our – being.
In a way, we are Gaia’s intelligence and awareness
– currently lost in self-destructive madness.
We must acknowledge, respect and love her for being
the Mother she is to us or we deny our very selves.
Nurture the Mother as she nurtures us.”
– Prof. Michael J. Cohen,
Ecopsychologist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“It is the responsibility of each human being today to
choose between the force of darkness and the force of light.
We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed
respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.”
– Maurice Strong,
first Secretary General of UNEP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The spirit of our planet is stirring!
The Consciousness of Goddess Earth
is now rising against all odds,
in spite of millennia of suppression,
repression and oppression inflicted on Her
by a hubristic and misguided humanity.
The Earth is a living entity, a biological organism
with psychic and spiritual dimensions.
With the expansion of the patriarchal religions
that focused on a male God majestically
stationed in Heaven ruling over the Earth and the
Universe, the memory of our planet’s innate Divinity
was repressed and banished into the
collective unconscious of humanity.”
– Envision Earth
“Still more important is the implication that the evolution of
homo sapiens, with his technological inventiveness and his
increasingly subtle communications network, has vastly increased
Gaia’s range of perception. She is now through us awake and aware
of herself. She has seen the reflection of her fair face through the
eyes of astronauts and the television cameras of orbiting spacecraft.
Our sensations of wonder and pleasure, our capacity
for conscious thought and speculation, our restless curiosity and
drive are hers to share. This new interrelationship of Gaia with man
is by no means fully established; we are not yet a truly collective
species, corralled and tamed as an integral part of the biosphere,
as we are as individual creatures. It may be that the destiny of
mankind is to become tamed, so that the fierce, destructive, and
greedy forces of tribalism and nationalism are fused into a
compulsive urge to belong to the commonwealth of all
creatures which constitutes Gaia.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
Gaia: A New Look At Life
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Little by little a planetary prayer book is
thus being composed by an increasingly united
humanity seeking its oneness. Once again,
but this time on a universal scale, humankind is
seeking no less than its reunion with ‘divine,’
its transcendence into higher forms of life. Hindus
call our earth Brahma, or God, for they rightly
see no difference between our earth and the divine.
This ancient simple truth is slowly dawning again upon
humanity, as we are about to enter our cosmic age
and become what we were always meant to be:
the planet of god.”
– Robert Muller,
UN Assistant Secretary General
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“What if Mary is another name for Gaia? Then her capacity for
virgin birth is no miracle . . . it is a role of Gaia since life began . . .
She is of this Universe and, conceivably, a part of God. On Earth,
she is the source of life everlasting and is alive now;
she gave birth to humankind and we are part of her.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
Ages of Gaia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred;
trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals.”
– Mikhail Gorbachev,
Green Cross International
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The spiritual sense of our place in nature…
can be traced to the origins of human civilization….
The last vestige of organized goddess worship
was eliminated by Christianity.”
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed,
we must destroy the Judeo-Christian Religious tradition.”
– Peter Singer, founder of Animal Rights
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I pledge allegiance to the Earth and all its sacred parts.
Its water, land and living things and all its human hearts.”
– Global Education Associates,
The Earth Pledge
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“By fostering a deep sense of connection to others and to the earth
in all its dimensions, holistic education encourages a sense of
responsibility to self to others and to the planet.”
– Global Alliance for Transforming Education
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The earth is not dead matter. She is alive.
Now begin to speak to the earth as you walk.
You can speak out loud, or just talk to her in your mind.
Send your love into her with your exhalation. Feel your
heart touching upon the heart of the planet. Say to her
whatever words come to you: Mother Earth, I love you.
Mother Earth, I bless you. May you be healed. May all
your creatures be happy. Peace to you, Mother Earth.
On behalf of the human race, I ask forgiveness
for having injured you. Forgive us, Mother Earth”
– US Student Textbook,
“Prayer to the Earth”
Re “Show one experiment carried out that makes what you claim above about a trace gas, CO2, that makes up a scant .036% of the atmosphere and is 1 &1/2 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere the driver of something as complex as the earth’s climate.” – have a look at this video:
Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw
That video really made a believer out of me. Yea! you bet. I now see where you came up with your stupid test that you offered up. I think that one could show some one with a CO2 fire extinguisher putting out a fire to demonstrate that CO2 is one and one-half times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere. Would that impress you with that fact?
Who cares that CO2 is heavier? The main thing is that is shows that CO2 absorbs infrared radiaion. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and traps heat that otherwise would be radiated into space. Why can’t you accept those FACTS?
I can not believe that some that would say this: “Who cares that CO2 is heavier?’ This shows the same degree of reasoning that his beloved NAS and IPCC people show when they produce their flawed “reports”. If CIO2 is heavier than the rest of the atmosphere, how much does this individule think that is going to be creating his pane of I guess a glass like substance in the green house that does exist but the contributing substance is not CO2 but H2O.
I understand that the information below will have no meaning to you and that is sad.
ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2
http://greenparty.ca/blogs/169/2009-01-03/ppm-co2-altitude-and-mass-co2-atmosphere-8520-metres-beyond-which-there-practic
“Who cares that a molecule of CO2 is heavier than a moiecule of air” is correct – CO2 IS well-mixed in the atmoshpere – most “deniers” do not deny this fact. Sure, if you filled a baloon with CO2 it WOULD sink. But things work differently at the molecular level. Try thinking for a change – if the molecules in the air were to layer themselves by weight, there would be bands of nitrigen, oxygen,water vapor, CO2, etc. But they all MIX at the molecular level and ratios throughout the atmosphere are relatively the same.
Re “Warmists ‘Want To Control Every Aspect Of Your Life’: ‘” – why do you beleve this propoganda? The truth is more like
“The deniers did not decide that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy by uncovering some covert socialist plot. They arrived at this analysis by taking a hard look at what it would take to lower global emissions as drastically and as rapidly as climate science demands. They have concluded that this can be done only by radically reordering our economic and political systems in ways antithetical to their “free market” belief system. As British blogger and Heartland regular James Delingpole has pointed out, “Modern environmentalism successfully advances many of the causes dear to the left: redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, greater government intervention, regulation.” Heartland’s Bast puts it even more bluntly: For the left, “Climate change is the perfect thing…. It’s the reason why we should do everything [the left] wanted to do anyway.”
http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,1
“radically reordering ” may be bit “extreme”, but some “reording” is essential. I see nothing wrong with “redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, greater government intervention, regulation.”, as long as these are done “moderately” and “appropriately” for the “public good”.
Enviro:
Re: Since the mid 1970s, the average surface temperature has warmed about 1°F. The Earth’s surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.29ºF/decade or 2.9°F/century.
Now that’s CLIMATE!
———-
Even if it was true, 1 degree F is about 0.2% relative to absolute zero. That is completely in the noise level.
Also it can be argued that the period heading towards 2070 can go the other way.
Doug –
Looks like you’re trying to get the title “King of Irrelevant Facts”!
Is the difference between 31 degrees F and 32 degrees F in the noise level for water? How about the difference between 212 degrees F and 213 degrees F? I don’t think serious climate scientists ever use percentages when talking about the temperature of the earth, as percentages are meaningless in that case.
And of course “it can be argued that the period heading towards 2070 can go the other way.” – anything can happen – nuclear winters, total collapse of civilization, etc. But, assuming no such catastrophes, and given a continued reliance on fossil fuels, the probability is close to zero. Not something I’d want to consider when designing an energy policy.
EV: Is this what one would call an oxymoron statement?
“Looks like you’re trying to get the title “King of Irrelevant Facts”!” If a fact is that, a fact, then how can it be irrelevant?
Facts may be facts, but not all facts are relavant when debating AWG.
“1 degree F is about 0.2% relative to absolute zero ” is an irrelevant fact. WHat is relevant is the amout of infrared radiatoin that the CO2 absorbs, and how the total amount varies based on the total amount in the atmosphere. Can you provide some relevant facts on this topic?
“it can be argued that the period heading towards 2070 can go the other way” is an irrelevant statement.
I haven’t seen any RELEVANT facts from you regarding the basic science of AWG – just lots of lots of irrelevant thought experiments and lots of irrelevant comments
I present EN, the one that will not use their real name and for obvious reasons, with a quotation from Atte Korhola, a Professor of Environmental Change at the University of Helsinki:
“When later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of the twenty-first century as an embarrassing chapter in the history of science. They will wonder about our time and use it as a warning of how core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten, as the actual research topic of climate change turned into a political and social playground.”
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/2/12/a-letter-to-paul-nurse.html
I am now on a road trip to southern Thailand from where I live 196 Kilometers south of Bangkok and really do not have the time, at present, to respond to your continual barrage of nonsense. When I do get the time, you will get a more in depth response, I assure you.
Please debate RELEVANT FACTS. Statements like the one you provide do not help with the understanding of the science. If you can, please provide links to the science that disputes 1) CO2 is primarily responsible for the greenhouse effect and 2) the earth will continue to warm as more CO2 is released from the burning of fossil fuels. Otherwise you are wasting my time with your continued nonsense
Time is not all you have wasted and the most serious has been the ability to apply rational thought to YOUR problem with CO2
Still waiting for you to debate the RELEVANT FACTS. If you can, please provide links to the science that disputes the FACTS that 1) CO2 is primarily responsible for the greenhouse effect and 2) the earth will continue to warm as more CO2 is released from the burning of fossil fuels. Otherwise you are wasting my time with your continued nonsense
An interesting article on the wierd weather in the US this winter:
“The ongoing March heat wave in the Midwest is one of the most
extreme heat events in U.S. history. With so many records being
shattered, it is difficult to cover in detail just how
widespread, long-lasting, and extreme the event is”
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html
Tornadoes, extreme flooding, unprecedented heat expected in U.S. today
By Dr. Jeff Masters
Published: 3:04 PM GMT on March 19, 2012
EN: And to think that you imagine that you can “school” me or any sane person on the difference between climate and weather. You obviously have no idea or understanding of what has been happening in Europe and Asia this winter. Some more of your delusional views, like your contention that the Medieval Warm Period was just in Europe for 300 years. Get real or at least get an idea of what is true and what is some BS that your few AGW “scientist” feed you.
“what has been happening in Europe and Asia this winter.” sounds like WEATHER to me.
Here’s a great SCIENTIFIC article on the Medieval Warm Period that supports my view:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf
Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but the spatial patterns
have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface
temperature patterns over this interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that
matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels
globally. This period is marked by a tendency for La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific.
The coldest temperatures of the Little Ice Age are observed over the interval 1400 to 1700 C.E.,
with greatest cooling over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere continents. The patterns of
temperature change imply dynamical responses of climate to natural radiative forcing changes
involving El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation–Arctic Oscillation.
EV. Your world is incredibly small, maybe it would help if you got out and saw some of the world beyond your dark basement.
Record cold this winter: CMA
March 13, 2012
By China News Center
BEIJING – China’s coldest winter since 1986 is expected to end by mid-March, with temperatures increasing gradually in most parts of the country, according to the China Meteorological Administration.
The average temperature this winter was about 1 C below average for the past three decades, Ren Guofu, chief engineer of the National Climate Center said.
He said China experienced unusually cold temperatures for two successive winters because of the abnormal movement of the atmospheric circulation.
In the Inner Mongolia autonomous region, outside temperatures dropped to 45 C below zero this winter, an historic record, according to the China Meteorological Administration.
http://www.chinamedia.com/news/2012/03/13/record-cold-this-winter-cma-2/
How come you keep confusing WEATHER with CLIMATE? THe earth is experiencing more extremes, which is consistent with AGW.
Since you like to talk about the WEATHER, here’s some interesting info:
Dr. Jeff Masters: A spring heat wave like no other in U.S. and Canadian history peaked in intensity yesterday, during its tenth day. Since record keeping began in the late 1800s, there have never been so many temperature records broken for spring warmth in a one-week period–and the margins by which some of the records were broken yesterday were truly astonishing. Wunderground’s weather historian, Christopher C. Burt, commented to me yesterday, “it’s almost like science fiction at this point.“
Among the stunning records set yesterday are:
Pellston, MI: record high broken by 32°F
Low temperatures beat the previous record high for the date at two stations
Multiple Canadian cites break all-time April records for warmth in March
Sadly, even this off-the-charts event is just what scientists have been warning to expect if we kept spewing billions of tons of heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the air (see Hansen et al: “Extreme Heat Waves … in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 Were ‘Caused’ by GlobalWarming”).
Yesterday, meteorologist Masters published a detailed statistical analysis that concluded, “It is highly unlikely the warmth of the current ‘Summer in March’ heat wave could have occurred unless the climate was warming.”
It is just like I told you EV. If it is a cold event, then that is “weather”, according to you and your buddies that know nothing about the issue; but, if it is a “warm” event, then it is a sure sign of climate change/ anthropogenic global warming or what ever you are calling it this week.
I have a question for you, EV. Why have none of the all time record high temperatures, some set in excess of one hundred years ago, not been broken?
What follows are world record high temperatures: World (Africa) El Azizia, Libya; Sept. 13, 1922, (136F):
North America (U.S.), Death Valley, Calif.; July 10, 1913 (134F)
Asia; Tirat Tsvi, Israel, June 21, 1942, (129F):
Australia, Cloncurry, Queensland; Jan. 16, 1889 (128F):
Europe, Seville, Spain, Aug. 4, 1881 (122F):
South America, Rivadavia, Argentina; Dec. 11, 1905 (120F):
Canada, Midale and Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan, Canada; July 5, 1937 (113F):
Oceania; Tuguegarao, Philippines, April 29, 1912 (108F):
Persian Gulf (sea-surface): Aug. 5, 1924 (96F):
Antarctica; Vanda Station, Scott Coast, Jan. 5, 1974 (59F):
South Pole, Dec. 27, 1978, (7.5F).
Highest average annual mean temperature (world): Dallol, Ethiopia (Oct. 1960 Dec. 1966), 94° F.
Longest hot spell (world): Marble Bar, W. Australia, 100° F (or above) for 162 consecutive days, Oct. 30, 1923 to Apr. 7, 1924. Notice anything regarding the dates of these records? Anyone heard of the dust bowl & wasn’t that in the 30s.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html
This explains in more detail the record that was stated above and all of these world temperature records make one wonder how it is possible that we are now all of a sudden entering into an unprecedented anthropogenic global warming cycle that is totally caused by CO2 with no influence from the sun or another source, if it was happening at all. For people to believe this is truly amazing and then to want to cripple the nation and the world to combat something that is not a problem is a crime against humanity, all for the gain of a few
“Marble Bar heat wave, 1923-24
The world record for the longest sequence of days above 100°Fahrenheit (or 37.8° on the Celsius scale) is held by Marble Bar in the inland Pilbara district of Western Australia. The temperature, measured under standard exposure conditions, reached or exceeded the century mark every day from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924, a total of 160 days.
The highest temperature recorded during the record spell was 47.5°C on 18 January 1924. There have been higher temperatures at Marble Bar, with the highest recorded being 49.2°C, on 11 January 1905 and again on 3 January 1922.”
It seems that you like to talk about IRRELEVANT WEATHER FACTS (and does anyone expect ALL record highs to be beaten with only an average of 1 degree F increase in temperature?) because the RELEVALT SCIENCE facts (temps increasing on a decadal scale, number of HIGH records exceeting record LOW temps by a significant margin over decades, CO2 as a driver of temperature, etc) all support the very high probability that AGW is a real problem that needs to be dealt with
Boston, Mass. reached 71 degrees, topping the previous record of 69 set way back in 1902. It was a similar story in New York City with temperatures also peaking at 71 degrees, tying a record that had stood since 1890!
Well, it was just as warm on this date in New York City 122 years ago.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/52872
What’s your point?
Another interesting article.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/linking_weird_weather_to_rapid_warming_of_the_arctic/2501/
05 Mar 2012: Analysis
Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic
The loss of Arctic summer sea ice and the rapid warming of the
Far North are altering the jet stream over North America, Europe,
and Russia. Scientists are now just beginning to understand how
these profound shifts may be increasing the likelihood of more
persistent and extreme weather.
EV. This FACT from the chart, (ssmi1_ice_ext.png (1667×1250)) makes what you claim out to be not true.
“As the sun rises at the North Pole, Arctic ice extent hits a seven year high.”
http://www.real-science.com/arctic-ice-extent-hits-a-sevenyear-high
So what? 1). One year is NOT relevant 2). Volume of multi-year ice IS relevant, and it is decreasing. 3) Decadal trends ARE relevant
EV: In addition to your other handicaps, reading comprehension can be added. Did you not notice that it said for a span of SEVEN years and that is SIX years difference in the ONE year that you maintain. It is evident that you have no memory either or you would have recalled the reference that is indisputable from the Washington Post article on changes in the arctic that can be found in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/200389-Flashback-1922-Extra-Extra-Read-all-about-it-Arctic-Ocean-Getting-Warm-Seals-Perish-Glaciers-and-Icebergs-Melt-
“Al Gore is not going to like this photo. Not at all. It’s a 1958 shot of the U.S.S. Skate, the first submarine to surface at the North Pole. In case you missed the significance of that sentence, let us hammer it home.
It’s 1958. That’s the North Pole. There’s no ice. Gore and his global warming brethren have repeatedly told us that the ice has never been as thin in the arctic as it is today, but this photo tells another story. It’s pretty clear that in 1958 the arctic was…well…pretty clear.
Not only did the the Skate surface in virtually ice-free water at the North Pole, but the weather was mild enough that crewmen went out to chip a bit of ice off the sub’s hull.”
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/photo-north-pole-submarine
I do enjoy this exchange with some one that is so mentally impaired; or, I should give you the benefit of the doubt and imagine that you just can’t remember anything that doesn’t fit your narrow, brainwashed vision of what you imagine the FACTS to be.
It seems that you like to talk about IRRELEVANT WEATHER FACTS – what happens in one year or seven years is not relevant (although it gives the media something to write about) – trends over decades are. The RELEVALT SCIENCE facts (temps increasing on a decadal scale, number of HIGH records exceeding record LOW temps by a significant margin over decades, CO2 as a driver of temperature, a downward trend of old arctic ice, a downward trends of September sea ice, a downward trend of ice volume, etc) all support the very high probability that AGW is a real problem that needs to be dealt with
Envrio
If we were at a critical lambda point then one degree would be of concern. Since we know the earth has been much warmer than it is now I don’t see your point.
btw, some bug in the voanews.com website filled in enviro’s yahoo email account in the reply window!
One degree IS of concern because, if the AGW theory is correct, we’re headed to much warmer temperatures if we continue to burn fossll fuels.
re “Since we know the earth has been much warmer than it is now “- is NOT RELEVANT. Do you not care about future generations? Do you think our decendents would be happy with us if their world were 6 degrees warmer than ours?
One degree IS of concern becuase it shows that AGW is probably real and that we’re headed to a warmer, disruptive climate
“we know the earth has been much warmer than it is now ” is NOT RELEVANT to how civilization will be affected by a climate a few degrees warmer than it is now.
Here is some more recent evidence for anyone stupid enough to believe that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that lasted 350 years were confined to the northern hemisphere and Europe. How damn stupid could one be to believe this?
“The medieval warmup experienced by northern Europeans from say 900AD to 1250AD seems to have been at least as hot as anything seen in the industrial era. If it was worldwide in extent that would strongly suggest that global warming may just be something that happens from time to time, not something caused by miniscule concentrations of CO2 (the atmosphere is 0.04 per cent CO2 right now; this figure might climb to 0.07 per cent in the medium term).”
“We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,” says the prof, who was at Oxford when most of the work was done but now has a position at Syracuse uni in the States. He and his colleagues write:
This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.
In other words, global warming has already occurred in historical, pre-industrial times, and then gone away again. Lu et al’s work is published in the peer-reviewed journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters. ®”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/23/warm_period_little_ice_age_global/
re “both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula” So what – that does not prove the “warm” events were world-wide.
Look at the evidence and science = “miniscule concentrations of CO2 ” CAN drive temperature changes, which can ifluence the weather. What IS RELAVANT now is that the rate of increase of CO2 is unprecedented over millions of years and the present level is higher than at any time during the last 800 thousand years. If you would bother to take the time to understand the SCIENCE at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12877&page=83, you would understand (1) that greenhouse gases are responsible for our planet being habitable, (2) increasing the concentration of GHGs will cause the temperature of the Earth to increase, and (3) CO2 is the main driver of the temperature. If you can’t provide a link to a reputable climate scientist (or scientific organization) that refutes this, you should be willing to accept the science and understand the consequences
Some more facts on the Medieval Warm Period:
1) From “SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE LAST 2,000 YEARS” ,NAS, http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1, which shows that current GLOBAL temperatues EXCEED those of the MWP
Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture
of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm
conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm
Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The
existence of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety
of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and
duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude
and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.
2) the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today’s warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.
On the definition of weather and climate for the one that will not offer up their real name and goes by Enviro.
In September, 2009 we went to Sri Lanka and spent 2 weeks and it is an interesting little country, about the same size as Ireland with an area of 66,000sq. Ks and is 353 Ks long and 183 Ks wide. and we have Sri Lankan friends that live in Nuewara Ellya. Colombo is a place to rapidly get out of and the most interesting place for us is Sigiriya. When we went from Polonnaruwa by public bus and that is an up close and personal experience with the population because I found that there is no such thing as a “full” bus in Sri Lanka, we went from dry heat to where it is cold enough in the mornings that we used the heater provided in the hotel. We then went to Yala National park where the water holes were drying up and they hauled water to keep the crocodiles wet and other critters something to drink and there are big cactus plants. The day we left there to go to Colombo to get the airplane, we went a short distance and then drove in a very hard rain storm for two hours through a lush forest.
Sri Lanka has two different monsoons; from May to Aug. the south-west brings rain to the southern and western sections and the central hills and is called the Yala. The north-east monsoon blows from Oct. to Jan. and is called the Maha and it brings rain to the north and east part of the island and mind you this all happens on a small island and has been the established pattern. What is weather and what is climate? Weather is a function of climate and it is a hard to define thing in the context of what occurs on Sri Lanka. Time is the defining factor because this is what has been happening for time immemorial there. I would also say that in places with seasons, the weather is for sure dictated by that, such as winter now in the United States and for sure a series of hard, difficult winters in Europe and Asia; but, to make it a simple thing to define is about like saying that the driving force behind the earth’s climate is CO2 and anyone that thinks that should just stay quiet and not try to damage and economically destroy the rest of the nation and its people.
Before you disparage my comments on CO2 driving the climate (which it does by affecting the Earth’s temperature) you should read the chapter on “Global Mean Temperature Responses “ in a book just published by the National Academy of Sciences. The chapter starts
The rapid addition of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere by human activities throws Earth’s energy budget substantially out of balance. For a time, Earth receives more energy from the Sun than it loses by emission of infrared radiation to space. The climate system rectifies this imbalance through processes acting over a range of different time scales. Restoring balance invariably results in a warmer climate, and the amount of warming associated with a prescribed addition of carbon dioxide is called the climate sensitivity. One obtains different climate sensitivities over different time scales, because additional processes come into play at long time scales, which are not important over shorter time scales.
The link to the chapter is
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12877&page=83
It’s a bit technical, but covers the concepts that I’ve been trying to get you to understand. The SCIENCE in chapter is the basis for understanding why AGW is real and needs to be dealt with
Doug –
The driving force behind the earth’s climate IS CO2 – it’s CO2 that keeps our planet habitable by absobing infrared radiation. The climate then reacts to the temperature created by the CO2 (and other GHGs). What do you think the temperature of the earth would be without the “non-condensing” ghg’s like CO2 and Methane? Relevelant FACTS please, not statements simplying saying that it isn’t so.
EN: This is your answer about the scientist that do not agree with your bogus AGW scam and there are thousands of them that share this view that the whole theory is an unproven hoax.
“Evidence reveals the number of official greenhouse gas theories almost matches the number of government climatologists spouting them. With the science in apparent turmoil critics of the theory are claiming the upper hand. The admission by Kramm and Dlugi adds further significance to the scathing studies by Professor Nasif Nahle of Mexico, Dr. Matthais Kleespies of Germany, Canadian astrophysicist, Joe Postma and NASA’s Apollo moon mission veteran, Dr. Pierre R. Latour. All four working seperately in their independent specialisms came to very much the same conclusion: the greenhouse gas hypothesis is wrong.”
” We all know the story: a small clique of a few dozen government scientists triggered the waste of $100 billion in research monies over 30 years. These “consensus” scientists (those experts believing in dangerous man-made greenhouse gas warming) are a mere 75 researchers from the 2,500 scientists – as proven by a survey conducted by the University of Illinois”
“To sum up, Latour, Nahle and Postma have compellingly refuted the 63 self-contradictory and idiosyncratic 2-dimensional models of orthodox climate science. They show the models are debunked because Earth was wrongly modeled as a flat, cold twilight planet Hansen. But from the moment Earth is correctly modeled as a 3-dimensional sphere all the incoming solar energy impacts just one hemisphere at a time which in turn makes the climate numbers add up without the contrivance of any unphysical ‘greenhouse gas’ effect.”
I’ll stay with the NAS conclusions. If any of these scientists have valid points, I’m confident that NAS will make necessary adjustments.
From the chapter on “Global Mean Temperature Responses “ in a book just published by the National Academy of Sciences. The chapter starts
The rapid addition of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere by human activities throws Earth’s energy budget substantially out of balance. For a time, Earth receives more energy from the Sun than it loses by emission of infrared radiation to space. The climate system rectifies this imbalance through processes acting over a range of different time scales. Restoring balance invariably results in a warmer climate, and the amount of warming associated with a prescribed addition of carbon dioxide is called the climate sensitivity. One obtains different climate sensitivities over different time scales, because additional processes come into play at long time scales, which are not important over shorter time scales.
The link to the chapter is
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12877&page=83
It’s a bit technical, but covers the concepts that I’ve been trying to get you to understand. The SCIENCE in chapter is the basis for understanding why AGW is real and needs to be dealt with
“Within climate a positive feedback subsystem never acts in isolation, but is always embedded within the overall climate system, which itself is always subject to a very powerful negative feedback, the Stefan–Boltzmann law: that emitted radiation rises with the fourth power of temperature. Hence, on earth the gain of the overall system is always less than one, stopping the system from suffering runaway effects. While there may have been periods of time such as the exit from an ice age where the gain was greater than one, this has not lasted long enough for extreme effects such as the evaporation of the oceans as is believed to have happened on Venus.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback
I hope that the above FACTS are RELEVANT enough for you EV. If the Chapter starts the way you show it, then the ending really must be something to behold.
No, those facts are NOT RELEVANT to the current discussion – no serious climate scientist expects the oceans to evaporate. What IS RELAVANT now is that the rate of increase of CO2 is unprecedented over millions of years and the present level is higher than at any time during the last 800 thousand years. If you would bother to take the time to understand the SCIENCE at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12877&page=83, you would understand (1) that greenhouse gases are responsible for our planet being habitable, (2) increasing the concentration of GHGs will cause the temperature of the Earth to increase, and (3) CO2 is the main driver of the temperature. If you can’t provide a link to a reputable climate scientist (or scientific organization) that refutes this, you should be willing to accept the science and understand the consequences
“20th Century Climate Not So Hot
Cambridge, MA – A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.
Smithsonian astronomers Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, with co-authors Craig Idso and Sherwood Idso (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) and David Legates (Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware), compiled and examined results from more than 240 research papers published by thousands of researchers over the past four decades. Their report, covering a multitude of geophysical and biological climate indicators, provides a detailed look at climate changes that occurred in different regions around the world over the last 1000 years. ” ( Did you get that EV? “the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents.”)
“Soon and his colleagues concluded that the 20th century is neither the warmest century over the last 1000 years, nor is it the most extreme……”
“Soon, Baliunas and colleagues analyzed numerous climate indicators including: borehole data; cultural data; glacier advances or retreats; geomorphology; isotopic analysis from lake sediments or ice cores, tree or peat celluloses (carbohydrates), corals, stalagmite or biological fossils; net ice accumulation rate, including dust or chemical counts; lake fossils and sediments; river sediments; melt layers in ice cores; phenological (recurring natural phenomena in relation to climate) and paleontological fossils; pollen; seafloor sediments; luminescent analysis; tree ring growth, including either ring width or maximum late-wood density; and shifting tree line positions plus tree stumps in lakes, marshes and streams.
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/archive/pr0310.html
EV: Soon, Baliunas and colleagues analyzed numerous climate indicators unlike your hero, Mike Mann, and his bristle cone pines that he used as a proxy to come up with his erroneous hockey stick bunch of totally debunked nonsense that your other hero, AL Gore, showed on his equally debunked movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”.
“British judge finds nine errors in Al Gore’s “alarmist and exaggerated” Inconvenient Truth movie”
http://britainandamerica.typepad.com/britain_and_america/2007/10/british-judge-f.html
If the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age occurred, and they most certainly did, then there was no anthropogenic influence on these two distinct and proven periods in earth’s climate history; therefore, it is impossible to prove that there is a link to anthropogenic CO2 and what the earth’s climate is doing today. anthropogenic produced CO2 never drove the climate in the past and it is not doing so now, no matter how many ways you want to try to spin it. You have never heard that
CO2 lags warming by as much as 800 years because cold water absorbs CO2 and warm ocean water releases CO2.
“As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit. It represents in a simple way how ocean currents carry warm surface waters from the equator toward the poles and moderate global climate.” (The Global Conveyer Belt has suddenly stopped for several speculated reason in the past and caused dramatic and rapid climate changes always to the cold side; therefore, warm is preferable to cold any day)
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-water-cycle/
“As water temperature increases, the increased mobility of gas molecules make them escape from the water, thereby reducing the amount of gas dissolved. (Could this be why warming forces the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by hundreds years & not what the alarmist want one to believe that it is the CO2 that is causing the warming?)
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/seawater.htm
I hope that the above FACTS are RELEVANT enough for you, EV.
Doug,
There are people (possibly EV) that believe we want to breathe dirty air and unless they can convince us that the world is headed towards some calamity, we will continue to operate dirty coal plants, etc.
So it doesn’t really matter what the facts are but rather how to accomplish specific objectives.
Some people have objectives beyond cleaning up the air. They are against development of any kind. To them it is better that millions of people starve than to continue development.
EV could be laughing in the back of his mind as he responds, knowing that most people will believe him because extensive psychological operations have been in effect to promote his position, however erroneous.
Some documentation on the DOD office of perception management:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception_management
In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, operations security, cover and deception, and psychological operations.
Jose –
I think you have your analogy backwards. The fossil fuel industry’s objectives is to prevent action from being taken to reduce CO2 emissions, and they have been very successful to date. Unfortunatelty for them, the science is not on their side. “My side” is mainly trying to get people to understand the BASIC science of climate change and it’s implications for civilization. The BASIC climate science is irrefutable. The major unknown is “climate sensitivity”, and if it’s in the 3 degree C range, we will likely experience major climate disruptions by 2050 (and are already experiencing minor climate disruptions)
EV: Why is warm bad? I do believe, since I spent 24 years in Alaska and 13 of those years were 140 miles above the arctic circle, that warm is preferable to cold any day. Tell me how many new species of plants or animals have been found in the arctic recently. It would take a total idiot to not understand that warmth is preferable to cold if you are either a plant or animal and alive, but the agw fools seem to have a different take on this than what logical folks believe.
“The poison dart frog Ranitomeya amazonica is one of more than 1,200 new species of plants and vertebrates discovered in the Amazon rain forest between 1999 and 2009, the international conservation group WWF announced Tuesday in a new report highlighting the region’s biodiversity.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/photogalleries/101027-amazon-species-wwf-bluetooth-tarantula-science-rainforest-pictures/
“NAGOYA, Aichi, Japan, October 26, 2010 (ENS) – At least 1,200 new species have been discovered in the Amazon ecosystem, at an average rate of one every three days during the decade from 1999 through 2009, the global conservation organization WWF revealed today in a new report.
This is a greater number of species than the combined total of new species found over a similar 10-year period in other areas of high biological diversity – including Borneo, the Congo Basin and the Eastern Himalayas, WWF said in the report, “Amazon Alive!: A Decade of Discoveries 1999-2009.”
Presented to delegates from 193 countries at the UN Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, the WWF report details the discoveries of 39 mammals, 16 birds, 55 reptiles, 216 amphibians, 257 fish and 637 plants – all new to science.”
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2010/2010-10-26-01.html
Re “20th Century Climate Not So Hot” -NOT RELEVANT – if that is true, so what? That’s not the issue. The issue is (1) the current trend – the decadal temperature increase, (2) all 13 of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1997, (3) the rate of increase of CO2 is unprecedented over millions of years (4) the present level of CO2 is higher than at any time during the last 800 thousand years, and (4) the science, as described in detail at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12877&page=83.
RE “Mike Mann, and his bristle cone pines” NOT CORRECT – please be more informed! Mann used many proxies for his hockey stick. As I’ve written before, the “Hockey Stick” has been validated over and over again. It was affirmed in a major review by the National Academy of Scientists (in media-speak, the highest scientific “court” in the land) . The Hockey Stick has been replicated and strengthened by numerous independent studies. It turns out that there are “hockey sticks” for sea level rise, ocean acidification, ocean temps, ice melting, etc.
The fact that there are errors in Al Gore’s movie in NOT RELEVANT – as I’m sure you know, the “deniers” are hoping that people will think that finding a few insignificant flaws in thousands of statements invalidates the entire body of science relating to climate change, which is hardly the case.
The fact that, in the past, “CO2 lagged warming by as much as 800 years” is actually a reason to be very worried about AGW. The lagging explains how just a small variation in sunlight (think of it as radiative forcing in watts/square meter) over the northern hemisphere leads to such major changes of climate. The CO2 emitted by humans causes much more energy to be retained (more watts/square meter) than the changes in sunlight that caused the ice ages. We’re probably in for a rough ride!
Re “warming reduces the amount of gas dissolved” – absolutely true in the past – one of the feedback mechanisms responsible for the great swings in temperature during the ice ages and shows that CO2 helps control the Earth’s temperature. The problem now is that, with rising sea temperatures, the oceans may not be able to absorb as much of the human-released CO2 as they have on the past. If this is the case, atmospheric concentrations will rise even faster, with a resulting faster increase in temperature.
Al Gore, whose company, Generation Investment Management, which is now worth over $200 million. His partner in the company, Maurice Strong, spends most of his time in China, the worst polluter on the planet, (CO2 is not a pollutant but an essential ingredient for life on earth). & he is doing what he can to make this communist country the world’s next superpower. It should be noted that Al Gore is not a climatologist. This debate about the climate has been going on for years but not in a manner that could bankrupt our nation or the developed world if they were ever stupid enough to sign into the Kyoto accords.
This carbon credit buying-selling is the financial part of the global warming scam that Al Gore has no small part in perpetuating. He set up Generation Investment Management in 2004. It became public that Gore uses in 1 month more than 2 times what the average American uses in one year, his average monthly electric bill was more than $1,350. When Gore was asked by Senator Inhofe (OK) to pledge to reduce his personal energy usage he refused & said that his conscience was clean because he purchases “carbon offsets”. “Gore wants to put a cap on the production of greenhouse gases.”He calls for an immediate freeze on U.S. emissions, a ban on new coal-fired power plants, tough new fuel economy and energy efficiency standards, renewable energy mandates, carbon taxes, and mandatory targets and timetables for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Those emissions consist mostly of carbon dioxide (CO2), the byproduct of fossil fuels, such as oil, coal, and natural gas, which supply 85% of all U.S. energy. Gore’s blueprint to save the planet moves the United States towards a command economy in which government regulators hold sway over what kinds and amounts of energy will be made available to the private sector. His principal regulatory tool is what’s called carbon credit trading.” Carbon off-sets are nothing more than a marketing gimmick and so far Gore & his neo-Marxist buddy; Maurice Strong, who spends most of his time in China helping that Communist country out, have over $200 million in assets in their company. Many companies see Kyoto & global warming laws as the best price fixing and subsidy creating deal in history. This is why the left loves this entire global warming BS so much, CONTROL. If you want more info on this go to: capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1185475433.pdf
If you understood the BASIC SCIENCE of climate change, you would also understand that most of Gore’s ideas ARE necessary to keep the global temp from rising more than 2 degrees C.. Why do you continue to listen to the fossil fuel-funded dis-informaton campaign?
“35 Inconvenient Truths
THE ERRORS IN AL GORE’S MOVIE by Christopher Monckton”
http://www.pensee-unique.eu/35%20Inconvenient%20Truths-1.pdf
You probably fear Monckton because he knows what he is talking about and never looses debates with your kind of “the sky is falling” alarmist who know nothing, and it shows.
Au contraire, Monkton refuses to debate since he knows that he is wrong. He has been thoroughly debunked, so please quite climate scientists instead. For example:
Monckton debunked
Readers of this blog have heard of Lord Christopher Monckton, who once posted a rebuttal of my rebuttal of the theories of Khilyuk and Chilingar. Monckton is a real role-model of a climate change sceptic.
Now, John Abraham from the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota has posted a presentation online, in which he gives a detailed rebuttal of many of Monckton’s allegations. A very instructive piece of work for all those interested in the depths of the climate change debate. Have fun!
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
Like almost everything that you have written before, this is not true as anyone that looks beyond the dishonest “findings” of the National Academy of Scientists. The “Hockey Stick” has NOT been validated by any truly unbiased scientific group anywhere.
“The vetting procedure is generally rigorous, but for over 20 years, there was a Temporary Nominating Group for the Global Environment to provide a back door for the election of candidates who were environmental activists, bypassing the conventional vetting procedure.” I imagine that it because of this process that people like John Holdren and the Disgraced ‘Deniergate” fraudster Peter Gleick are members of the National Academy of Sciences. How long can this institution remain “prestigious” with members like this?
In your world, it seems that anyone opposed to your view is biased. The NAS is about as unbiased as any organization (the scientists are not compensated for the work they do for the NAS). Where is your link to an unbiased group that shows WORLD temps different from Mann’s latest “hockey stick”?
WAKE UP!
Nature: Strong Evidence Manmade ‘Unprecedented Heat And Rainfall Extremes Are Here … Causing Intense Human Suffering’
It is very likely that several of the unprecedented extremes of the past decade would not have occurred without anthropogenic global warming.
That’s the conclusion of a major new analysis of the scientific evidence in Nature Climate Change, “A decade of weather extremes”. The research is by Dim Coumou and Stefan Rahmstorf of Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1452.html
These are just a few more of the corrupt ramblings of bought off people who have sold science for a few pieces of silver. They will do more damage to science than what the Church did when they excommunicated Galileo.
If you understood the BASIC SCIENCE of climate change, you would also understand that it is very likely that AGW is affecting the climate extremes. Why do you continue to listen to the fossil fuel-funded dis-informaton campaign?
Are you sure of that B.P.? It appears that you are sure of nothing. You are the one, in addition to EV, that needs to WAKE-UP!! It would be too much to ask for you, if you did wake-up, to then THINK.
“Coldest and Warmest Days In the United States
As large as it is, the United States has been subject to an incredibly wide range of temperatures. Read on to discover the Coldest Temperatures recorded in United States History, the Coldest Day in Continental United States History, and the Warmest Day recorded in the United States.
Coldest Day In US History: -80 Degrees F. Its no surprise that the coldest temperatures recorded in US history were logged in Alaska. The record came on January 23, 1971, at Prospect Creek. It’s along the oil pipeline.
Coldest Day in Continental US History: -70 F. This was recorded January 20, 1954 at a mining camp in Montana called Rogers Pass.
Warmest Days in US History: 134 F. Recorded at the Greenland Ranch in Death Valley on July 10, 1913. For a time, this also was the warmest recorded temperature in World History. It was surpassed less than ten years later, however, when a temperature of 136 was recorded in the Sahara Desert at Al Azizia, Libya, on Sept. 13, 1922.”
http://www.epicdisasters.com/index.php/site/comments/coldest_and_warmest_days_in_the_united_states/
What is the deal here, B.P.? The hottest day in US history was in 1913 and the hottest day ever recorded world wide was in 1922. What do you make of this correlation between this happening in 1922 and then this is what was happening in the arctic during that year. What does that say about you and EV wanting to make the stupid assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was confined to the North Atlantic,(this seems to be extremely important to EV to propagate this misconception because it must have something to do with the fraudulent “hockey stick” that Mann manufactured for Al Gore.) and this is after EV thinking that they can school me on the difference between climate and weather
This reference, that is indisputable from the Washington Post article on changes in the arctic, that can be found in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/200389-Flashback-1922-Extra-Extra-Read-all-about-it-Arctic-Ocean-Getting-Warm-Seals-Perish-Glaciers-and-Icebergs-Melt-
If you actually wanted to learn something there are various links here to look into.
The Worst US Winter Storms
http://www.epicdisasters.com/index.php/site/comments/the_worst_us_winter_storms/
“And how about tornadoes? The recent Evansville, Indiana tornado has been used as evidence of increasing tornado violence.
In the first place, the 22 dead in Evansville in 2005 pales in comparison to the 1925 Tri State Tornado’s 625 casualties. With no disrespect intended to the people of Evansville, it just doesn’t compare.
Further, because there are more people in the United States, it is only logical to expect that there are more places for tornadoes to touch down and do damage
http://www.epicdisasters.com/index.php/site/comments/has_there_been_an_increase_in_the_number_of_natural_disasters/>
Epic Disasters: The World’s Worst Disasters
http://www.epicdisasters.com/index.php/site/comments/the_worlds_worst_floods_by_death_toll/
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2012/02/fakegate-blows-up-in-warmist-faces.html
You keep talking about WEATHER. I’m trying to change the subject to CLIMATE. Look at the TRENDS – the number yeary HOT records have exceeded COLD records since the 1970’s.
If you understood the BASIC SCIENCE of climate change, you would also understand that it is very likely that AGW is affecting the climate extremes. Why do you continue to listen to the fossil fuel-funded dis-informaton campaign?
My advice: ignore all the surface temperature records full stop. GISS (administered by warmist activist James Hansen), HadCRUT (Phil “Climategate” Jones), they’re all as bad as each other – “homogenised” to within an inch of their lives. So it comes as little surprise that the latest version of the Hadley/CRU temperature database now shows 2010 as being warmer than 1998. How convenient.
And isn’t it amazing that it now better fits the global warming narrative? Just like GISS – it was inconvenient that the 1930s were warmer in that dataset than the present, but never mind, they found a way round it (click the image) – magic!
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/03/new-hadcrut-temperature-record-makes-2010-hotter-than-1998/
I don’t agree w ingoring the surface temp records – but what do you suggest as an alternative? Ocean temps? The oceans have actually absorbed 80-90 percent of the inceased enerrgy trapped by GHG’s – and ocean temps are also on the rise.
Google “Fingerprints global warming” and look at
http://www.climatehotmap.org/fingerprints.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6918/full/nature01286.html
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/06/338286/charts-evidence-human-fingerprint-on-recent-climate-change/
RE CO2 helps control the Earth’s temperature, etc,
In an “American Thinker” article (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html), Fred Singer (one of the leading “deniers”) debunked a number “denier myths”, includes the following:
Another subgroup simply says that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is so small that they can’t see how it could possibly change global temperature. But laboratory data show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation very strongly. Another subgroup says that natural annual additions to atmospheric CO2 are many times greater than any human source; they ignore the natural sinks that have kept CO2 reasonably constant before humans started burning fossil fuels. Finally, there are the claims that major volcanic eruptions produce the equivalent of many years of human emission from fossil-fuel burning. To which I reply: OK, but show me a step increase in measured atmospheric CO2 related to a volcanic eruption.
But he also endorsed some other rather horrid climate myths in the process. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/fred-singer-debunks-and-denies.html for an explanation of why his “science” just plain wrong. (Note: Please follow the money! “Last year, Singer admitted that he had received from Exxon Mobil “an unsolicited and unexpected donation of $10,000 more than a decade ago.” The Heartland leak shows that he currently receives “$5,000 per month, plus expenses” from the institute.”)
So what regarding Dr. Singer and what ever he may have received from whom ever. Obviously you have never looked into how much your AGW lackeys have received from corrupt government agencies.
You just don’t get it! Why do you continue to listen to Dr. Singer and the fossil fuel-funded dis-information campaign? Their “talking points” have mostly been debunked, yet most climate scientists willingly accept criticism of their work and adjust their thinking accordingly. Do you continue to disparage those with whom you disagree because you can’t provide links to factual Web pages that show they might be wrong?
You can not get anything right, can you EV?
The Feb 21 issue of The Wall Street Journal published an editorial, “The Not-So-Vast Conspiracy” noting that “As for ‘the largest international science conference of skeptics’ Heartland will, according to the documents, spend all of $380,000 this year on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. That’s against the $6.5 million that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) costs Western taxpayers annually, and the $2.6 billion the White House wants to spend next year on research into ‘global changes that have resulted primarily from global over-dependence on fossil fuels.’”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204909104577233191850812630.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop>
The global warming hoax has cost taxpayers billions since it was initiated and earned the purveyors of “carbon credits” millions as industry and others paid for the privilege of emitting “greenhouse gas”—primarily carbon dioxide—as part of doing business. Currently the European Union is trying to shake down the airline industry by charging them a surtax on their emissions as they fly tourists and businessmen to that benighted continent. Most of the exchanges that sold the credits have since closed. I hope that the airlines quite flying to the EU and that is what China air is saying that they will do. So much for the tourist income for the EU.
Understanding climate change costs money, but far, far less money than the costs associated with weather events made worse by global warming. It’s well worth the price. If you understood the BASIC SCIENCE of climate change, you would also be willing to spend the money. Why do you continue to listen to the fossil fuel-funded dis-informaton campaign?
WAKE UP!
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/23545
Climate Change Close to Tipping Point, Soon Irreversible
SustainableBusiness.com News
Scientists keep beating the drum, hoping the world will wake up to the fact that climate change is a real, non-partisan, non-advanced vs development country issue.
At the Planet Under Pressure Conference, taking place in London, 2800 scientists warn the earth is dangerously close to an irreversible tipping point.
Dubbing the phenomenal recent explosion in human activity, “The Great Acceleration,” leading scientists say time is running out to minimize the risk of setting in motion irreversible and long-term climate change and other dramatic changes to Earth’s life support system.
If you actually believe in this “tipping point” you need to seek physiological care, and soon.
I obviously meant Psychological care but it appears to be too late for that to do any good.
If you understood the BASIC SCIENCE of climate change, you would also understand that the “tipping points” ARE REAL. Why do you continue to listen to the fossil fuel-funded dis-informaton campaign?
“35 Inconvenient Truths
THE ERRORS IN AL GORE’S MOVIE by Christopher Monckton”
http://www.pensee-unique.eu/35%20Inconvenient%20Truths-1.pdf
First off, I thank Jose for letting it be known that there are people with knowledge and a rational thought process that follow this issue and they far out number the type of people that have been making their irrational believes known to us here.
The only reason I carried on with this discussion was to look into the depths of the far left, anthropogenic global warming alarmist mind to try to analyze just what is going on there. If one can use a metaphor for the depth of this mind, it would have to be a pond of water so shallow that one would not even get their feet wet stepping into it.
Enviro and Bruce Parker keep using the same lies to try to further their argument and that reminds me of a saying that the Buddhist have: “A half-truth is a whole lie” and in this case there is nothing remotely approaching a half truth that either of these two have presented. The fact is that no matter how many different ways one tells a lie, using different sources of the lie, it is still always a lie and that is the case of trying to make honest, rational, thinking and knowledgeable people believe that a trace gas, CO2, that makes up a paltry .036% of the atmosphere and is 1 & 1/2 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere is the driving force for something as diverse and complicated as the earth’s climate. These delusional people seem to think that the sun can be totally discounted from what makes the climate act as it does and that alone is a sign of being totally naive regarding this issue.
The CERN experiment has significant implications for climate science because water vapor and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes. When Dr Kirkby first described the theory in 1998, he suggested that cosmic rays “will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.” “……in Switzerland, scientists finally discover the true cause of “global warming”. It’s the sun, stupid. More specifically – as the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has long postulated – it’s the result of cosmic rays which act as a seed for cloud formation. The scientists working on the project are naturally euphoric: this is a major breakthrough which will not only overturn decades of misguided conjecture on so-called Man Made Global Warming but will spare the global economy trillions of dollars which might otherwise have been squandered on utterly pointless efforts to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions.” Every one with a brain understand this but perhaps a couple that do not fall into this category of having a brain.
I will not spend too much more time on this but will offer up a couple of other post and then I am done because I have accomplished my mission and I see just how misinformed and delusional some people are that tend to lean to the far left and believe in agw.
EV: Please give me one of your climate verses weather irrelevant takes on this below:
Record cold this winter: CMA
http://www.chinamedia.com
March 13, 2012
BEIJING – China’s coldest winter since 1986 is expected to end by mid-March, with temperatures increasing gradually in most parts of the country, according to the China Meteorological Administration.
http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/china-record-cold-this-winter/
In 2005 I hiked the 23.9 miles across the Grand Canyon from the North Rim to the South Rim. It was in October and it was very cool on the N.Rim when we left in the morning, we spent a night at Cottonwood camp ground on Bright Angel Creek and then we went to Bright Angel camp ground below the Phantom Ranch and it was 100*F in the shaded. I realize that climate is just a function of weather over time; but, where in your delusional mind, do you separate the two, as for the example that I presented regarding Sri Lanka?
WEATHER is what happens in one year in one locatation. The east coast of the US is experiencieng the hottest March on record. Maybe they average out to “normal”?
I’ve both rafted the Grand Canyon and hiked rim to river – so I know the temp differences.
CLIMATE is what happen globally over tens of years, and all FACTS point to rising temps, as expected by AWG
1. ALL annual temps since the 70’s were above the 20th century average
2. The hottest 13 year have all occurred since 1997.
3. Each decade since the 1970’s has been warmer that the previous decade
4. etc, etc, etc. – by any definition of CLIMATE, the trend is warmng temps
WAKE UP!
Why can’t you tell the truth? What you say above is a lie and if you do not know it you are one dishonest, closed minded individual.
As I pointed out to you previously”…. by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its data sets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.
Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data sets.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.
It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).
For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
How can one fail to understand that if 75% of high altitude stations are dropped as well as those in selected higher latitudes, then the resulting reports are going to be false, and that they are, but they seem to fit the lie you want to spread and I am beginning to wonder why you are doing this. One would have to be totally naive to not be able to see what is happening here, and that you appear to be. I am beginning to wonder if you actually believe the garbage that you spew and if I am just being taken for a ride by an unscrupulous fool.
“Global satellite data is analyzed for temperature trends for the period January 1979through June 2009. Beginning and ending segments show a cooling trend, while the middle segment evinces a warming trend. The past 12to 13years show cooling using both satellite data sets, with lower confidence limits that do not exclude a negative trend until 16years. It is shown that several published studies have predicted cooling in this time frame. One of these models is extrapolated from its 2000 calibration end date and shows a good match to the satellite data, with a projection of continued cooling for several more decades.”
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230
This above certainly contradicts what you have maintained and therefore demonstrates that the truth is a foreign ingredient in you ridiculous assertions.
Doug –
Get your FACTS straight!
http://mediamatters.org/research/201001270042
“The accusations [of deleting the data for the thermometeters] are either “a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the nature of the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and methods used in calculating global temperatures.”
If the data for the dopped stations is used, the estimated temperatures would actually be HIGHER. You should be glad that the stations were dropped!
re “Global Satellite data” – the article is by Craig Loehle and is published in the non-peer reviewed “The Journal Energy and Environment”, which is social science ’scientific’ vanity press which publishes most of the Denier dreck because actual scientific journals insist on publishing only actual science. He is also an “expert” the Heartland Institute, so I tend to discount anything that he writes.
Doug –
As usual, you have things backwards. In evaluating the arguments of those involved the climate change discussion, you should treat with skepticism those who (1) cherry pick data; (2) talk about weather events instead of climate; (3) rely on irrelevant facts; (4) refuse to provide a scientific basis for their positions; (5) take statements by others out of context; (6) state that an article reaches one conclusion when it actually reaches an opposite conclusion; etc. Most climate scientists do none of these. Just because they profess so many inconvenient truths is no reason to call them “liars”. However, most “deniers” are only too happy to rely on those methods in order confuse the media and the public. They are the real “dis-informers” (you would probably call them “liars”)
I was hoping that you were curious enough and intelligent enough to understand the BASIC science of climate science – that CO2, even though it is a trace gas, IS the driver of the Earth’s temperature and hence has an oversize influence on the climate relative to it abundance. It’s so simple that the only conclusion that I can reach is that if you can’t (or more likely, are unwilling to) understand it, your mind must be being controlled. So here it is it again:
1. The sun is responsible for the energy that heats our planet.
2. Greenhouse gases (water vapor, CO2,etc) are given that name because they keep the earth warm by absorbing infrared radiation and re-radiating much of it toward the earth
3. W/o GHG’s the Earth would be roughly the same temperature as the moon – hardly habitable!
4. GHG’s come in two varieties – “condensing” (water vapor, etc) and “non-condensing” (CO2, methane, etc.)
5. W/o the “non-condensing” GHG’s, the “condensing” GHG’s would quickly condense and leave the atmosphere
6. The “non-condensing” GHG’s provide the “framework” that allows the “condensing” GHG’s to stay in the atmosphere
7. As the amount of “non-condensing” GHG’s in the atmosphere increase, the temperature goes up and the amount of “condensing” GHG’s also goes up, providing a positive feedback
8. As the amount of “non-condensing” GHG’s in the atmosphere decrease, the temperature goes down and the amount of “condensing” GHG’s also goes down, providing a negative feedback
9. There are many other factors (the sun’s radiance, cosmic rays, clouds, aerosols, albedo, etc.) that affect the temperature for at given amount of GHG’s but, over time, there is an average temperature (the “equilibrium” temperature) for a given amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. A drop in the CO2 in the atmosphere will result in a lower “equilibrium” temperature, and an increase in CO2 will result in a higher the “equilibrium” temperature. (“Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes”, but these average out over hundreds of years. Ditto for cosmic rays.)
10. Until relatively recently, the suns radiance was the primary, long-term driver of temperature and climate
11. What is different now is that CO2 is at the highest level it has been for over 800,000 years.
Given the BASIC science above, it is a FACT that the Earth’s temperature will increase as humans add CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. We can’t know for certain what the increase will be, but there is a reasonable probability that, with the increased CO2, the increase in temperature may cause significant, detrimental changes to the Earth’s climate.
Btw, it looks like there has been another “defection” from your “camp” – Paul Douglas (a Republican Meteorologist):
I’m going to tell you something that my Republican friends are loath to admit out loud: climate change is real. I’m a moderate Republican, fiscally conservative; a fan of small government, accountability, self-empowerment and sound science. I am not a climate scientist. I’m a Penn State meteorologist, and the weather maps I’m staring at are making me very uncomfortable. No, you’re not imagining it: we’ve clicked into a new and almost foreign weather pattern. To complicate matters I’m in a small, frustrated and endangered minority: a Republican deeply concerned about the environmental sacrifices some are asking us to make to keep our economy powered-up. It’s ironic. The root of the word conservative is “conserve”. A staunch Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, set aside vast swaths of America for our National Parks System, the envy of the world. Another Republican, Richard Nixon, launched the EPA. Now some in my party believe the EPA and all those silly “global warming alarmists” are going to get in the way of drilling and mining our way to prosperity. Well, we have good reason to be alarmed.
Trust your gut — and real experts. We should listen to peer-reviewed climate scientists, who are very competitive by nature. This is not about “insuring more fat government research grants.” I have yet to find a climate scientist in the “1 Percent”, driving a midlife-crisis-red Ferrari into the lab. I truly hope these scientists turn out to be wrong, but I see no sound, scientific evidence to support that position today. What I keep coming back to is this: all those dire (alarmist!) warnings from climate scientists 30 years ago? They’re coming true, one after another — and faster than supercomputer models predicted. Data shows 37 years in a row of above-average temperatures, worldwide. My state has warmed by at least 3 degrees F. Climate change is either The Mother of All Coincidences — or the trends are real.
(see entire post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-douglas/republican-climate-change_b_1374900.html)
WAKE UP!
Doug –
Looks like another “traitor” (General Motors) has left your “group”. WAKE UP!!!
The automaker told the Heartland Institute last week that it won’t be making further donations, spokesman Greg Martin said. At a speech earlier this month, GM CEO Dan Akerson said his company is running its business under the assumption that climate change is real.
It is you who needs to wake up, but when will that day come about? You also need to make sure that you always have your sun glasses handy because if you ever get your head out of your posterior, that sun that you discount for causing the earth’s climate is going to very, very bright.
I would not be very proud to have Government Motors considered as in my “group”. This miss-managed corporation that couldn’t make it one their own is now in “YOUR GROUP”. This is the same corporation that, after the car salesman in chief gave them billions of dollars, allowed them to renege on a binding contract that they had with Stillwater Mining for their platinum and instead buy the medal from S. Africa. Some more of that patriotism that you and yours are noted for. We didn’t see the foreign owned car corps. That are manufactured in the US going to DC in Corporate jets with a tin cup in hand to beg for money from government. I use to buy GM products but will do so never again.
The sun DOES cause the earth’s climate – where else could the energy come from? But it the GHG’s that keep the planet habitable (that’s why they’re called GHG’s!!!) And with CO2 at the highest levels for over 800,000 years, the Earth WILL get warmer.
> Looks like another “traitor” (General Motors) has left your “group”. WAKE UP!!!
Gee, did anyone ever think that Government Motors was against cashing in on carbon credits?
Don’t think GM will get much (if anything) from carbon credits They do know that their business plans must consider the phasing out of fossil fuels.
“officially just had our COLDEST December since records began 100 years ago!
The Met Office reckons this December was absolutely freezing, as across the country we shivered through temperatures that averaged -1C.
On average, temperatures in December usually hit around 4.2 degrees, so it really was a lot colder.
But at least it didn’t rain – forecasters said it was also the third driest December on record.
Check out pictures of baby elephants in the snow!
Arctic blasts caused havoc across the UK, making it hard for people to get around in cars, planes and public transport.
Thousands of crabs wash up in Kent
The big freeze also affected wildlife. In Kent, tens of thousands of crabs were killed by the cold weather, and washed up on the beach.”
Since BBC has pushed this scam called Anthropogenic Global Warming from the very beginning, they just felt obliged to end this story with this bit of unsubstantiated nonsense
“But globally, 2010 was one of the hottest years on record”.
http://cdnedge.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_9340000/newsid_9341000/9341080.stm
How could this be EV if it was not for the lying that is perpetuated by folks like you and the biased media that can’t report anything accurately “But globally, 2010 was one of the hottest years on record”?
Seems like a big jump on logic to believe that the COLDEST December since records began 100 years ago is happening in the same year that this rag claims was one of the hottest years on record when even a ten year old can look it up and tell you that 1934 was much, much hotter than 2010. Oh well, we know that it would take an idiot to believe this kind of garbage and who do we have believing it? It appears that this winter, 2012, is going to be among the worst of the last three devastating winters for the proud people of Mongolia but still we have fools wanting rational folks to believe that there is a general warming trend going on. Unbelievable!!! And before you go with the climate/weather crap, please explain why the all-time record highs for the continents and area of the earth are not being broken. You can not do so.
I have friends in MT. WY. & S. DK that are in the ranching business and they say that if this winter is global warming then let next winter be the same. Cold and winters are what kills and cost money if you have livestock to feed. None of them will quit putting up hay because they all are bright enough to know that next winter could be as cold and expensive as the one was that preceded this mild winter. They are reasonable and rational people and do not need a super computer model to tell them how to run their operations because they need the truth to plan around, not some lie put forth by the IPCC or some clown that is a member of the NAS.
You keep confusing local WEATHER with global CLIMATE. Look at GLOBAL TRENDS,not individual LOCAL YEARS.
Global warming ‘a myth’ – Russian academic Mar 26, 2012 19:14 Moscow Time
“Russian geoscientist Professor Nikolai Dobretsov has called attention to the fact that after decades of decline, the Arctic Ice Cap is into its fifth straight year of growth.Speaking in Moscow Monday, he argued that what is known as ‘global warming’ is in fact a brief phase of climatic oscillation which may bring ‘global cooling’ towards the end of the 21st century.He also said that the matter cannot be sorted out without many more permanent observation posts in the High Arctic.
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_03_26/69668928/
EV:This falls into line with what I try to tell you about all of the observation post that have been cancelled in the arctic.
Sounds like cherry picking and dis-information to me:
See http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
This year’s maximum ice extent was the ninth lowest in the satellite record, slightly higher than the 2008 maximum (15.24 million square kilometers or 5.88 million square miles) Last year, 2011, was the lowest maximum on record, 14.64 million square kilometers (5.65 million square miles). Including this year, the nine years from 2004 to 2012 are the nine lowest maximums in the satellite record.
Arctic sea ice extent is declining in winter as well as in summer months, although the decline is not as steep in the winter months.
The study showed a longer-term decline in sea ice cover of up to 6% per decade across all North Atlantic harp seal breeding grounds since 1979.
EV: There should be enough links and people that KNOW the FACTS about this hoax that you lie about to keep you busy. Will it make you understand what the truth is? I would say that you are so ideologically crippled that it will not.
“Global Cooling Consensus Is Heating Up – Cooling Over The Next 1 To 3 Decades
By P Gosselin on 28. Dezember 2010
As winters get harsher and the snow piles up, more and more scientists are now warning of global cooling. Reader Matt Vooro has compiled a list (see below) of 31 prominent scientists and researchers who have words that governments ought to start heeding.
UPDATE: Another one for the list – Professor Paar, from Croatia’s Zagreb University
Cooling seems to be the trend. Photo source: NOAA.
Lately, the clueless among warmist scientists, governments and the MSM have been running around in deep snow with their global warming blinders on, denying the cold around them. Governments, entrusted to serve the citizens, really ought to start listening up and planning accordingly.
http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/global-cooling-consensus-is-heating-up-cooling-over-the-next-1-to-3-decades/
Post commented on Professor Mike Hulme’s article about IPCC. The article can be found here at probeinternational.org. Hulme is a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Quoting Hulme, Solomon said:
“The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.”
http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/global-cooling-consensus-is-heating-up-cooling-over-the-next-1-to-3-decades/
EV: To have “misled” some one is basically the same as lying, whether you know that or not.
I watched the American alarmist to the Nth degree, James Hansen, giving a speech and it was sickening to see him looking like the bought off fool he is in his Indiana Jones hat and all while he told his fibs about CO2, the energy industries and never once offered up any solutions because he has none. He is the first US bureaucrat to make over 1.2 million dollars in a year so maybe he bought one of those Ferraris you talk about. I’ll bet he didn’t waste his money on a Chevy Volt.
9. Dr. Alexander Frolov, Head of Russia’s state meteorological service Rosgidromet. The Daily Mail.co.uk quotes Frolov:
‘From the scientific point of view, in terms of large scale climate cycles, we are in a period of cooling.
‘The last three years of low temperatures in Siberia, the Arctic and number of Russia mountainous regions prove that, as does the recovery of ice in the Arctic Ocean and the absence of warming signs in Siberia.”
http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/global-cooling-consensus-is-heating-up-cooling-over-the-next-1-to-3-decades/
EV: You need to go to the link and school Dr. Alexander Frolov on weather/climate and “cheery-picking”. But he would pay no more attention to your garbled drivel than what most rational people do.
Looks like more drivel on WEATHER vs CLIMATE. If “we are in a period of cooling”, how come, when compared to previous La Niña years, the 2011 global surface temperature was the warmest observed? Sounds like warming to me (but it’s not the single year that’s important – that would be cherry picking).
“three years of low temperatures in Siberia, …” DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING – that’s simply WEATHER. Besides, the ice in artic is NOT recovering:
http://nsidc.org/asina/faq.html#why_more
In 2008, Arctic sea ice reached a minimum extent that was about 10 percent greater than the record low of 2007, and the minimum extent in 2009 was greater than either 2007 or 2008. Does this mean that Arctic sea ice is beginning to recover?
Even though the extent of Arctic sea ice has not returned to the record low of 2007, the data show that it is not recovering. To recover would mean returning to within its previous, long-term range. Arctic sea ice in September 2008 remained 34 percent below the average extent from 1979 to 2000, and in September 2009, it was 24 percent below the long term average. In addition, sea ice remains much thinner than in the past, and so is more vulnerable to further decline. The data suggest that the ice reached a record low volume in 2008, and has thinned even more in 2009. Sea ice extent normally varies from year to year, much like the weather changes from day to day. But just as one warm day in October does not negate a cooling trend toward winter, a slight annual gain in sea ice extent over a record low does not negate the long-term decline.
In addition, ice extent is only one measure of sea ice. Satellite measurements from NASA show that in 2008, Arctic sea ice was thinner than 2007, and likely reached a record low volume. So, what would scientists call a recovery in sea ice? First, a true recovery would continue over a longer time period than two years. Second, scientists would expect to see a series of minimum sea ice extents that not only exceed the previous year, but also return to within the range of natural variation. In a recovery, scientists would also expect to see a return to an Arctic sea ice cover dominated by thicker, multiyear ice.
EV: Piers Corbyn is saying what I have tried to tell you all along but there is none so blind as he who will not see, THE TRUTH.
30. Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist. From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/27/piers-corbyn-goes-global-cooling/
Predicting in November that winter in Europe would be “exceptionally cold and snowy, like Hell frozen over at times,” Corbyn suggested we should sooner prepare for another Ice Age than worry about global warming. Corbyn believed global warming “is complete nonsense, it’s fiction, it comes from a cult ideology. There’s no science in there, no facts to back [it] up.”
http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/global-cooling-consensus-is-heating-up-cooling-over-the-next-1-to-3-decades/
You still haven’t provided where there has been a test to prove how this trace gas, CO2, that is essential for life on earth is the driver of the earth’s climate. You can not do so is why.
You can call a “horse” a “cow”, but that does not make it a “cow”.
All the FACTS of AGW are there for anyone to understand, but since these inconvenient truths go against your preconceived notions, you are blind to them.
“Predicting in November..” – You keep talking about WEATHER
The simplest “test to prove how this trace gas, CO2, that is essential for life on earth is the driver of the earth’s climate.” is the Earth itself. Without GHG’s, the Earth would be about the temp of the Moon. Remove the CO2 (and other non-condensing GHG’s) from the atmosphere, and the water vapor would disappear in a matter of days. And the temperature would plumet. Do you disput this? I don’t think you’d be satisifed with a proof that shows 1+1=2.
Some information for you on glaciers that the IPCC & their WWF clowns never heard of or they would not have predicted the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 and you believe these kind of people?
“• Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich. (From 1926 to 1960, some 70-95% of these glaciers were in retreat.)
• A comparison of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 1965 and 1990 Plant Hardiness Zone Maps, shows a southward change of one zone, or 10°F, between 1965 and 1990.
• Careful measurements of the oxygen isotope ratios in German oaks, which are rigorously calibrated to temperature data, show a 1°C temperature decline from 1350 to 1800 (the lowpoint of the Little Ice Age). Temperature thereafter increased by 1°C from 1800 to 1930, and has been declining since then.
• From weather stations in the Alps, and in the Nordic countries, we find the temperature decline since 1930 is also 1°C.
• Satellite measurements have shown growth in the height and breadth of the huge Greenland ice sheet, the largest in the Northern Hemisphere
On Nisqually
That brings us to the Nisqually glacier, up on the 14,410-foot Mount Rainier, near Tacoma, Wash. Just 85 feet shy of Mount Whitney, the highest point in the lower 48 states, Mount Rainier has 26 glaciers, and is the largest single peak system in the United States.
In 1931, fearful that the receding glacier would provide insufficient runoff for their newly completed hydroelectric facility, Tacoma City Light began careful measurements of the glacier. Since the mid-1800s, the glacier had receded about 1 kilometer. Annual to semi-annual measurements, continued by the U.S. Geological Survey and private contractors for the National Park Service, provide the longest continuous series of glacier measurements in North America.
The details are described in a report by government specialists, which appeared in the September 2000 issue of Washington Geology:
“The greatest thickening during the period of measurement occurred between 1931 and 1945, when the glacier thickened by about 50% near 2,800 meters of altitude. This and subsequent thickenings during the mid-1970s to mid-1980s produced waves that advanced its terminus. Glacier thinning occured during intervening periods. Between 1994 and 1997, the glacier thickened by 17 meters at 2,800-m altitude, indicating probable glacier advance during the first decade of the 21st century.”
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Ice_Age.html>
Doug –
Re: “Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035” – “2035” was a typo – should have been 2300 or 2350.
You continue to cherry-pick data to support you opinions – look at the worldwide/continental trends:
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
Artic Sea Ice – declining
Antarctica mass variation since 2002 – declining
Greenland mass variation since 2002 – declining
Sea level – rising
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120208132301.htm
Earth’s glaciers and ice caps outside of the regions of Greenland and Antarctica are shedding roughly 150 billion tons of ice annually, according to a new study led by the University of Colorado Boulder.
Croat scientist warns ice age could start in five years
Croatian Times
A leading scientist has revealed that Europe could be just five years away from the start of a new Ice Age.
While climate change campaigners say global warming is the planet’s biggest danger, renowned physicist Vladimir Paar says most of central Europe will soon be covered in ice.
The freeze will be so complete that people will be able to walk from England to Ireland or across the North Sea from Scotland to northern Europe.
Professor Paar, from Croatia’s Zagreb University, has spent decades analysing previous ice ages in Europe and what caused them.
“Most of Europe will be under ice, including Germany, Poland, France, Austria, Slovakia and a part of Slovenia,” said the professor in an interview with the Index.hr.
“This could happen in five, 10, 50 or 100 years, or even later. We can’t predict it precisely, but it will come,” he added.
And the professor said that scientists think global warming is simply a natural part of the planet.
“What I mean is that global warming is natural. Some 130,000 years ago the earth’s temperature was the same as now, the level of CO2 was almost the same and the level of the sea was four metres higher.
The Zagreb based scientist says it will still be possible for man to survive in the ice age, but the spending on energy will be enormous.
EV: There are Real scientist that try to do things that will benefit humanity instead of wanting to put us back in the stone age as your anthropogenic global warming folks would like to do with their hoax about how using fossil fuels is destroying the planet. I have been to Zagreb on a couple of occasions and have enjoyed my stays there.
“He said: “The nuclear energy we know today will not last longer than 100 years as we simply do not have enough uranium in the world to match the needs in an ice age. But I’m still optimistic. There is the process of nuclear fusion happening on the Sun. The fuel for that process is hydrogen and such a power plant is already worked on in France as a consortium involving firms from Marseille and the European Union, the US, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea. The head of the project is a Japanese expert, and former Japanese ambassador in Croatia”, Vladimir Paar revealed.”
http://www.croatiantimes.com/news/General_News/2010-02-10/8836/Croat_scientist_warns_ice_age_could_start_in_five_years>
Where do you find this nonsense? You must be getting pretty hard up! Sure global warming IS natural – it’s simply the result of more CO2 in the atmosphere, as anyone with brains knows. If it weren’t for the CO2 from fossing fuel burning, we WOULD be headed into an ice age. But it only takes a little CO2 above 280 ppm in the atmosphere to prevent another ice age. I really liked
“What I mean is that global warming is natural. Some 130,000 years ago the earth’s temperature was the same as now, the level of CO2 was almost the same and the level of the sea was four metres higher.”
If history is a guide, we’re in for at least 4 meteres of sea level rise. And where will most of that rise come from? Greenland, Antarctica, and other glaciers. WAKE UP!
EV: Here is someone that doesn’t agree with you or your “scientist” such as Peter H. Gleick & John Holdren, an old apostle of Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University who said that “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” at the National Academy of Scientists. Prof Paul Ehrlich shows the kind of regard for humanity that you and your kind is noted for.
The world needs more people like what I mention below and fewer like EV, Holdren, Gleck and also for sure Gore and James Hansen to move ahead instead of backwards and that is the direction they want to take us.
This discussion and the list of organizations and people’s philosophies for the world going forward that I presented above on March 19, 2012 at 1:43 am & also on March 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm did make me recall that a man that had more influence on world food production than any one else in the last century died Sept. 12, 2009 and I doubt that more than a hand full of people even knew about it or what Norman Borlaug had done for humanity, I’m almost certain that includes Enviro. Luther Burbank, who died in 1926 and did work on the potato that bears his name, needs to also be mentioned.
One would not want to proclaim accolades for the man that started the Green Revolution that introduced high yielding grains to Mexico that allowed that country to become an exporter of wheat and allowed India and Pakistan to double their wheat yields between 1965 & 1970 and made Paul Ehrlich and his 1968 bestseller “The Population Bomb” look like the fiction it is. It is interesting to note that in the past when the Norwegians were at themselves and hadn’t gotten into the mushrooms too frequently, they awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to him in 1970. The honor for what use to be a prestigious prize has now been eroded to where it is basically worthless and that is sad.
Anyway EV, if you want some more information you can go to this site for VALID science besides the CO2 nonsense that you spew, with out knowing the first thing about that which you speak. What Norman Borlaug did as a scientist is what science is suppose to do, find the truth and use that truth to advance knowledge and the human race, not like the idiots you seem to admire, to try to take humanity back to a time of privation, despair, hunger and a very short, unhappy existence. It has been the use of fossil fuels that has offered the alternative and that has been advancement on all front, or haven’t you been blessed with the brains to figure that out?
Homepage Prof. dr. C de Jager
http://www.cdejager.com/sun-earth-publications/>
You do like to rant irrelevent drivel! You should use some of this energy to look at the SCIENCE of CO2, infrared absorption, greenhouse gases, temperature, and climate. “You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitied to your own facts.”
3/31/2012 8:40 PM
Btw, it looks like there has been another “defection” from your “camp” – Paul Douglas (a Republican Meteorologist):
Now some in my party believe the EPA and all those silly “global warming alarmists” are going to get in the way of drilling and mining our way to prosperity. Well, we have good reason to be alarmed.
BTW EV: This kind of clown was never in my “camp” because he is as delusional as you and B.P. are. If it has not been the wise use of fossil fuels that has lead to the developed world’s prosperity then what did? Please do not tell me it was wind mills, solar companies such as Solyndra and Beacon Power.
“In August 2010, Beacon Power became one of the first companies in the nation to get an Energy Department loan guarantee designed to jump-start innovative and clean energy projects. On Monday, it became the second one to file for bankruptcy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/beacon-power-declares-bankruptcy-second-loan-guarantee-recipient-to-falter/2011/10/31/gIQACNAaaM_story.html
There was sure not a lot of prosperity created with these kind of boondoggle BS ventures. Maybe for the few in on the crony capitalism but nothing for the general population and you think that Paul Douglas would be someone that I would consider to be “in my camp”? Some one whose camp I am in is John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel.
http://www.kusi.com/story/14072205/global-warming
Now I understamd where you get your “junk science”.
Let me take one simple example where Coleman is very misleading. He states:
It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb anymore heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions. That’s why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.
This is so misleading that’t is pitiful.
First of all, ” [CO2] cannot absorb anymore heat than there is available to the other gases.” is totally misleading. Of course it can’t – only so much heat is avaible by definition. And all of the heat is available to be absorbed by all the gases. But guess what – only CO2 (and water vapor and a few other gases) absorb the infrared heat – nitrogen and oxygen do not.
Next “All gases share their heat with the other gases” – of course – But guess what – only CO2 (and water vapor and a few other gases) absorb the infrared heat – nitrogen and oxygen do not. The heat that the CO2 absorbs is then “shared” with the other gas molecules.
What Coleman neglects to say is that the source of heat in the atmosphere is infrared radiation, which is absorbed by CO2 and not nitrogen and oxygen. So what actually happens is the CO2 absorbs the radiation, gets warmer, then “immediately lose[s] any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions”, thus warming the atmosphere. No CO2, no warming (like the moon). Lots of CO2 (e.g., 280PPM), lots of warming (about 60 degrees F worth). More CO2, more warming. It’s that simple. When someone like Coleman is so misleading, why do you listen to him?
Enviro:
Here is an example of how government is funding Government Motors.
If you are thinking about buying a Chevrolet Volt, your eligibility for the $7500 Federal rebate, as well as a potential $5000 California Rebate will surely have a significant impact on your purchasing decision. Combined this is as much at $12,500 in government incentives on a car that many expect will MSRP for over $40,000.
http://www.mychevroletvolt.com/chevrolet-volt-tax-incentives-and-rebates
For those concerned w both reducing US reliance on foreign oil and with AGW, this is a needed policy to promote development of electric cars.
I do not find it strange that in their quest for alternative energy, EV doesn’t mention things that have been proven to worked: Must have just slipped their mind.
EV needs to know that the below refers to electrical generation. Besides natural gas there is at this time no alternative for petroleum for vehicles ( I almost forgot the Chevy Volt & this little gem to help the American working middle class out, lots of jobs created with this one, in Finland)
“Vice President Joseph Biden heralded the Energy Department’s $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company called Fisker as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs. But two years after the loan was announced, the job of assembling the flashy electric Fisker Karma sports car has been outsourced to Finland.”
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41545>
EV: If the Chevy Volt is the answer in your eyes to the use of foreign oil then why has Government Motors suspended production of this boondoggle?
EV needs to also realize this fact:
“Figure 2: Net Generation Shares by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors),
Year-to-Date through March, 2011”
(The pie chart shows this): “Coal, 44.7%; Natural Gas, 20.6%; Nuclear,20.5%; Hydroelectric Conventional, 8.4%; Other Energy Sources, 5.2% and Petroleum .8%”
http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
Now you understand the problem and why the fossil fuel industry is spending so much money on their dis-information campaign – we are addicted to fossil fuels, and their use has to be reduced by over 90% by 2050 to forestall to the worst effects of a warming planet. We therefore need to foster the development of renewable energy, providing the same sorts of subsidies as were provided to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries.
EV needs to know that the electric cars are going to have to be recharged and wind mills and Solyndra like boondoggles will not do that job. Besides natural gas there is at this time no alternative for petroleum for vehicles ( We can not forgot the Chevy Volt & this little gem to help the American working middle class out, lots of jobs created with this one, in Finland)
“Vice President Joseph Biden heralded the Energy Department’s $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company called Fisker as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs. But two years after the loan was announced, the job of assembling the flashy electric Fisker Karma sports car has been outsourced to Finland.”
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41545
EV: If the Chevy Volt is the answer in your eyes to the use of foreign oil then why has Government Motors suspended production of this boondoggle? I do not imagine that EV would consider the fact that Henry Ford started his auto company with out any “help” from the Federal Government and he seem able to design the first assembly line and other innovations without the Government and most of the innovations that have changed and bettered human existence have come about in this way, through innovation and damn sure not some tax like the cap and trade that many on your side of the fence said was need to spur new ideas and innovation. The only new ideas taxes create are ways to cheat and not pay them. Humanity did not advance beyond the stone age because of a tax on stones or advance beyond the age of sailing ships to steam powered vessels because of a tax on sail cloth or mast but because of innovation and people that were free to think and design without government interference.
There was a slight repeat on my other comments to this reply to EV because the first one did not appear but EV needs to be told many times before anything sinks in; therefore, no harm done.
This goes along with the other things that Obama’s green nonsense has totally screwed up and part of that was withholding drilling permits in the Gulf Of Mexico so that those rigs could go to Mexican waters to drill in, guess where, the Gulf Of Mexico or to Brazil so that they could drill in their off shore sites and send the oil to China. The main point is, they were no longer being used to developing the United States off shore oil and it would seem that was part of Obama’s plan to raise gas prices and that is what happened. This includes not issuing permits on federal lands or off shore of the US and for sure no permits to drill in ANWR or even to allow a pipeline from Canada to be built that would add jobs with no government cost.
This is what EV thinks is the answer? Electric cars. EV knows no more about this subject than they do about CO2 and that appears to be next to nothing from the nonsense that they put forth about this trace gas that is essential for all life on earth as we have come to enjoy it.
“GM has just announced it will be idling the plant (and the 1,300 workers at that plant) where the “game changing” Chevy Volt electric car is – uh, was – built. GM says it’s only temporary – until they figure out how to “align production with demand.” It could be a long wait for those workers.
GM, like every car company, has embraced the politics of green because it leads to taxpayer-financed green. Think Solyndra was a boondoggle? The Mackinac Center for Public Policy estimates that the actual cost-per-car of each Volt, once all the federal subsidies are factored in, comes to $250,000 or $3 billion, total. (Lookee here for more.)
Guess who paid for that?
It wasn’t GM’s money. It was your money. And mine. And the money taken from millions of other taxpayers, all poured into the coffers of GM to further the advancement of otherwise economically untenable projects that would never have see the light of day except for the fact that we have a system of crony capitalism that distorts the free market like a funhouse mirror.”
http://epautos.com/2012/03/03/the-volt-sleeps-with-the-fishes/
From MArch 3:
Mar 3, 2012 at 10:01 am
Yesterday, General Motors told 1,300 Detroit employees “they will be temporarily laid off for five weeks” due to lower than expected demand for its Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid-electric vehicle.
No doubt there are many contributing factors, but in January, GM CEO Dan Akerson explained:
We did not design the Volt to become a political punching bag and that’s what it’s become.
He had been called in to testify by the Tea-Party crowd running the U.S. House in a hearing witch-hunt titled, “Volt Vehicle Fire: What Did NHTSA Know and When Did They Know It?” Yes, that’s a reference to Nixon and Watergate!
In fact, NHSTA concluded it does not believe the Volt and other electric vehicles “pose a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles.”
Media Matters put together a video of the conservative media misrepresentations:
As TP Green reports, those who launched “conspiracy-tinged partisan attacks” got what they wanted:
Relentless attacks on the Chevy Volt from Rush Limbaugh and Republican politicians have taken their toll, as General Motors has announced a five-week suspension in production of the range-extended electric car. Conservative enemies of clean energy and the Obama administration seized on isolated reports Volts with battery fires, calling the cars “Obama-mandated death traps.” Limbaugh even said GM was a “corporation that’s trying to kill its customers.”
Has there ever been a more relentless partisan campaign against American products and American jobs than this?
—————————————————————
GM Says Chevrolet Volt Production To Resume A Week Early
By Derek Kreindler on April 5, 2012
So, EV, what is the deal here? If this Ill-conceived vehicle is so great, then why didn’t people buy the thing, fire or no fire? Then you have the nerve to post this: “Has there ever been a more relentless partisan campaign against American products and American jobs than this?” with out understanding that the electric Fisker Karma sports car that your buddies in this current administration have supported with MY money is being made in Finland, lots of jobs for Americans if they move to Finland. Is the electricity to charge these things going to come from your windmills and solar panels that produce less that 3% of the total electrical needs in the US?
EV, as does B. P, keeps mentioning the temperature and they want one to believe that 2010 was the hottest year since records have been kept when the statistics show that for the United States that year was in 1934 and that was during a 10 year drought that covered a huge part of the US.(“Over the 11-year span from 1930-1940, a large part of the region saw 15% to 25% less precipitation than normal.”) #1 They can not seem to understand that if there is a 75% drop in reporting stations around the globe there just might be a difference in the temperature statistics going forward because by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its data sets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers. Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one in service plus they left one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65 and that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers. The above is in addition to all of the reporting stations that were lost when the USSR fell and even EV and B.P. should know where most of these stations were located. Sure sounds like some lying going on here with temperature. Then EV states that this does not matter and with these 75% of the high latitude and high elevation stations in the reporting data base, the temperatures would be higher. Just how dishonest or stupid could one be and I challenge this individual to prove this, about like his test for how CO2 can cause climate change, I would assume.
When global satellite data is analyzed for temperature trends for the period January 1979 through June 2009 the beginning and ending segments show a cooling trend, while the middle segment shows a warming trend. “The past 12to 13years show cooling using both satellite data sets, with lower confidence limits that do not exclude a negative trend until 16years. It is shown that several published studies have predicted cooling in this time frame. One of these models is extrapolated from its 2000 calibration end date and shows a good match to the satellite data, with a projection of continued cooling for several more decades.” #2
Then there is the hockey stick diagram that is a total lie and has been so proven by 765 different scientists from 453 research institutes that have worked on the medieval warm period. The Canadian mathematician Steven McIntyre had serious doubts about the correctness of the representation. McIntyre showed not only that Mann had used an algorithm that resulted in 90 percent of the cases to a hockey stick, but found also serious errors in the selection of the data and the location of places, as well as the use of incorrect data. In 2007, McIntyre examined records across America. He found that between 1999 and 2007, the US equivalent of the Met Office had changed the way it adjusted old data.
The result was to make the Thirties seem cooler, and the years since 1990 much warmer. Previously, the warmest year since records began in America had been 1934.
“Over the 11-year span from 1930-1940, a large part of the region saw 15% to 25% less precipitation than normal. This is very significant to see such a large deficit over such a long period of time. This translates to 50 to 60 inches of much needed moisture which never arrived that decade. For an area which only averages less than 20 inches of precipitation a year, deficits like this can make the region resemble a desert. Deficits like this are the equivalent of missing three entire years of expected precipitation in one decade. Figure 2 is a map of the precipitation departures from normal in terms of a percentage of normal (total precipitation divided by normal precipitation) for the Dust Bowl region for 1930 to 1940.”
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ama/?n=dust_bowl_verses_today
“Severe drought in 1934 covered 80% of the country, compared with 25% in 2011
In June, 1934 the entire country had triple digit heat. We didn’t come anywhere close to that this summer.”
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/062/mwr-062-06-0212.pdf
This is a lie that all alarmist had to defend with “tricks”, more lies or what ever it takes because if the true global temperatures are shown the graph sure does not resemble a hockey stick but an up and down line that shows the Roman warm period, the Medieval warm period and the Little Ice age. Then these two act like a logical and rational person is to believe that the MWP was just a local event because they can see that even with the lies that they dig up, they can not discount it. This is after the one wants to try to lecture some one on the difference between weather and climate.
The whole point is, if the warm and cold periods are shown accurately, then that blows their false contention about the climate being driven by anthropogenic factors and that lone factor in carbon dioxide. It is a very lame horse that the alarmist have put their saddle on and it is about to go down since lies will always come to be known for what they are, lies.
#1 http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ama/?n=dust_bowl_verses_today
#2 http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230
“tricks” = “clever programming”, NOT “tricking the public”
You continue to confuse WEATHER and CLIMATE when you talk about specific years
“NOAA had deleted from its data sets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers” – for “scientific reasons”, and if they hadn’t they would have shown an even greater temperature increase – you should be glad they did!
In the Canadian tradition, it would be “unparliamentary” to accuse ClimateAudit’s Steve McIntyre of purposefully misrepresenting climate science, but his latest attack on the so-called “hockey stick” suggests that McIntyre is a great deal more interested in scoring distorted debating points than in saying anything that is actually factually correct. The “Hockey stick” has been validated over and over again.
Why don’t you understand that the “climate [is] being driven by anthropogenic factors and that lone factor in carbon dioxide”? CO2 is the primary “non-condensing” GHG and provides the “framework” for “condensing” GHGs – more CO2 = warmer climage. What could be simpler (and more “inconvenient” for you) ?
EV: Please take some time and explain just how what you say below can possibly be true. Where is the logic behind this statement that if reporting stations from high latitudes and altitudes are removed from the data set, how could what you try to maintain be true?
“NOAA had deleted from its data sets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers” – for “scientific reasons”, and if they hadn’t they would have shown an even greater temperature increase – you should be glad they did!” Why and How should I be glad that they did this?
Take some time to read
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped-stations-introduce-warming-bias-intermediate.htm
EV: Try your normal style lying that everyone sees through to explain this from the actual emails.
So far one of the most circulated e-mails from the CRU hack is the following from Phil Jones to the original hockey stick authors – Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes.
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
“Smoke screen alert!”
Your argument has been thouroughly debunked (included by me above)- your are misinterpreting the statement.
The “decline” refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.
see http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm
EV needs to explain this with out lying about it but can they say anything with out fabricating some far from feasible “story”?
How “The Trick” was pulled off
by Steve McIntyre
For the benefit of new readers, we discussed some aspects of the “trick” at Climate Audit in the past. Obviously, the Climategate Letters clarify many things that were murky in the past. On the left is a blowup of IPCC 2001 Fig 2.21 showing where the Briffa reconstruction (green) ends. More on this below.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/how-the-trick-was-pulled-off/
I some how from experience with you know that you will not be able to understand the above information so I include this again for your viewing pleasure:
Climategate ‘hide the decline’ explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
Why do you believe anything that McIntyre says?
from http://deepclimate.org/2011/01/20/another-climategate-whopper-from-mcintyre/
So chalk up another “climategate” falsehood to go with McIntyre’s repeated “hide the decline” nonsense (see here, here and here), not to mention the spurious “fudge factor” accusation. And don’t get me started on Yamal.
The last time I checked ClimateAudit, McIntyre was blathering about lack of “acknowledgment”, in his best whining Rodney I-can’t-get-no-respect Dangerfield fashion. But it’s high time for McIntyre himself to acknowledge the sad truth about his long and disturbing record of innuendo, half-truths and outright falsehoods.
And for everyone else to acknowledge that McIntyre has nothing worthwhile to say about climate scientists. Or climate science for that matter.
Do you believe what Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller in the video? Probably too simple and straight forward for you to grasp.
EV keeps wanting to talk about climate verses weather and only seems to think that a thirty year period defines the issue. They do not want to go back to the Medieval Warm Period that is a proven fact nor the Little Ice Age because, with these climatic shifts that have been proven to be a fact and were world wide, the hoax of anthropogenic global warming is blown out of the water or where ever the lie resides at present. The link below gets one to a chart that shows the different climatic periods in earth’s long history and there was NO anthropogenic effects on any of these periods, and that is as true today as it was 2 billion years ago.
“During the last 2 billion years the Earth’s climate has alternated between a frigid “Ice House”, like today’s world, and a steaming “Hot House”, like the world of the dinosaurs.
This chart shows how global climate has changed through time.”
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
“The world’s most recent glacial period began about 110,000 years ago and ended around 12,500 years ago. The maximum extent of this glacial period was the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and it occurred around 20,000 years ago.
Although the Pleistocene Epoch experienced many cycles of glacials and interglacials (the warmer periods between the colder glacial climates), the last glacial period is the most heavily studied and best known portion of the world’s current ice age, especially with regard to North America and northern Europe.”
“Most of the world’s glaciers are famous today however for their significant retreats in recent years. Such a retreat represents a new shift in the earth’s climate- something that has happened time and time again over the earth’s 4.6 billion year history and will no doubt continue to do in the future.”
http://geography.about.com/od/climate/a/glaciation.htm
I know that EV will not understand that what is presented above demonstrates the difference between climate and weather but just what has the individual shown that they do or can understand?
You are right – “Such a retreat represents a new shift in the earth’s climate- something that has happened time and time again over the earth’s 4.6 billion year history and will no doubt continue to do in the future.”
The change IS a new shift, but
1) W/o the CO2 from fossil fuels, we’d be heading into a new ice age
2) The CO2 levels are the highest they have been in over 800,000 years
3) the additional CO2 traps more infrared radiation, warming the Earth
4) If the glaciers continue to retreat at the current accelerating pace, we could see 1-2 meters of sea level rise by 2100 – a rather disasterous amout for our civilization
“The change IS a new shift, but
1) W/o the CO2 from fossil fuels, we’d be heading into a new ice age”
Is there a possibility that EV does have a small amount of common sense and the ability to rationalize this issue enough to realize that, if something is alive, warm is preferable to cold any day? Could that be why over 90% of the earth’s life forms are found in the tropics and not in the polar regions? EV I’m sure can give a true and honest answer to the above question.
Just trying to make you understand ths AGW is real. In past geologic times, there were aligators in the Arctic and sea levels were hundreds of feet higher – are those the conditions that you’d like condem the Earth to?
“Modern Global Cooling: 2012 Winter Is 2nd Coldest In Last 15 Years – By 2100, Winters Might Be 1 Degree Colder
If the current modern global cooling continues, winters in the Northern Hemisphere and summers in the Southern Hemispere could be colder – human CO2 emissions may actually be irrelevant”
http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/03/modern-global-cooling-2012-winter-is-2nd-coldest-in-last-15-years-by-2100-winters-might-be-1-degree-.html
“NEW UK Met Office global temperature data confirms that the world has not warmed in the past 15 years.
Analysis by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) of the newly released HadCRUT4 global temperature database shows that there has been no global warming in the past 15 years – a timescale that challenges current models of global warming.
The graph shows the global annual average temperature since 1997. No statistically significant trend can be discerned from the data. The only statistically acceptable conclusion to be drawn from the HadCRUT4 data is that between 1997 – 2011 it has remained constant, with a global temperature of 14.44 +/- 0.16 deg C (2 standard deviations.)”
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/04/no-global-warming-for-15-years-david-whitehouse/
It looks like Phil Jones can no longer “hide the decline” like EV’s hero, Mann. wanted to do with “tricks”.
“We also note a comment in an email sent by Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit: “Bottom line – the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.” Well, EV, is he worried now?
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/04/no-global-warming-for-15-years-david-whitehouse/
Ev seems to infer that anyone not buying into their ridiculous scam of agw just has to be in big oils pockets:
“Obama is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years.” | Reuters
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html#ixzz1r4eyvfIV
The energy industries have done more for humanity than what the type of self serving fools EV seems to support.
“Figures don’t lie, but liars figure”.
The EARTH IS NOT COOLING!!!!!! The 13 warmest years since 1850 occurred in the last 15 years; 2010 was the warmest year ever when there was a la nina event.
The temperature of the ATMOSPHERE may not have increased much in the last 10-15 years, but most of “global warming” goes into the OCEANS. Current observations of the 700 metre surface layer have shown little warming, or even cooling, in the last 8 years; but the surface layer down to 1500 metres has shown significant warming.
There are many “unknowns” in climate science of ocean heat content (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/ for a good discussion). But we know the earth continues absorb more heat that it emits (see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120130172611.htm) and that more CO2 will absorb more infrared radiation. So the expectation is that the EARTH will continue to warm and, over time, so will the atmospere.
EV: what follows also address the phony claims made by your kind of hysterical “alarmist” who need no proof or knowledge of basically anything to run around like chicken little about the oceans becoming warmer or more acidic when the base line for this, the pH scale, wasn’t developed until 1909 the Danish scientist Soren P.L. Sorenson
I agree that “There are many “unknowns” in climate science of ocean heat content” but EV, you are not going to find the truth by going to your trusted sites such as Realclimate & Sciencedaily that uses someone like James Hansen for a source. This is the same Hansen that thinks nothing of altering data to suit his flawed theory, like your other hero, Michael Mann, thinks is ethical.
This is what the organization that he works for, or against, says:
“On land the situation is considerably more complex, and includes the deposition of rain and snow on land; water flow in runoff; infiltration of water into the soil and groundwater; storage of water in soil, lakes and streams, and groundwater; polar and glacial ice; and use of water in vegetation and human activities.”
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-water-cycle/
“The pycnocline (meaning rapid change of density) separates the surface layer of the ocean from the deep ocean. Deep ocean water has a temperature of about 3 degrees Celsius and a salinity measuring about 34-35 psu.” (What does all of this do to the ocean’s pH? Where and what depth are your pH observations taken from?)
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/deep_ocean.html
“The interaction between water temperature and salinity effects density and density determines thermohaline circulation, or the global conveyor belt. The global conveyor belt is a global-scale circulation process that occurs over a century-long time scale. Water sinks in the North Atlantic, traveling south around Africa, rising in the Indian Ocean or further on in the Pacific, then returning toward the Atlantic on the surface only to sink again in the North Atlantic starting the cycle again.” (Again, your narrow time span makes your worries groundless if you are looking at 20-30 years and who & where and at what depths were these readings taken regarding PH and temperatures? Also NASA seems to want to compress this circulation time span into centuries when most believe it is at least a thousand year cycle)
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-water-cycle/
“As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit. It represents in a simple way how ocean currents carry warm surface waters from the equator toward the poles and moderate global climate.” [The Global Conveyer Belt has suddenly stopped for several speculated reason in the past and caused dramatic and rapid climate changes always to the cold side; therefore, warm is preferable to cold any day and now the same NASA is saying that the time span is a thousand years and it is the same NASA that also said the time period was perhaps a hundred years]
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-water-cycle/
What’s your point? Unlike most “deniers”, climate scientists like Hansen will acknowledge their mistakes when they are shown to be wrong. You might not like the “inconvenient truths” found on RealClimate and similar sites, but they DO NOT contain any debunked climate science (as is often found on your favorite sites). They report the controversies as they see them from a SCIENTIFIC perspective, with their only bias that of scientists who understand the basics of climate science and wanting the public to be able to separate fact from fiction. Your “deniers” just want the throw up “smoke screens”, while Hansen, etc. are trying to clear away the fog.
Monday, February 6, 2012
New paper finds 20th century warming within range of natural variability
A paper published this week in the journal Climate of the Past analyzes an “unprecedentally large network of temperature…proxy records” [a total of 120] and concludes that warming of the 20th century was “within the range of natural variability over the last 12 centuries.” Only two of the eight types of temperature proxies analyzed indicate 20th century warming exceeded that of the Medieval Warming Period.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/02/new-paper-finds-20th-century-warming.html
EV: Why would GISS be so reluctant to provide this information athat is legally requested? Do you imagine that they have something to hide?
“Climate Gate” Development: CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA
By Chris Horner on 11.24.09 @ 9:46AM
Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal – for nearly three years – to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.”
GISS has nothing to hide – CEI is just trying to make the public think there are problems w the basic understanding of climate science, where the BASIC science was settled long ago. Think of the suit as a smoke screan trying to hide what the climate scentists really know.
“Rural US Sites Show No Temperature Increase Since 1900
Using data downloaded from NASA GISS and picking rural sites near, but not too near, to urban sites, a comparison has been made of the temperature trend over time of the rural sites compared to those of the urban sites. 28 pairs of sites across the U.S. were compared. The paired rural site is from 31 to 91 km from the urban site in each pair. The result is that urban and rural sites were similar in 1900, with the urban sites slightly higher. The urban sites have shown an increase in temperatures since then. The rural sites show no such temperature increase and appear to be generally unchanging with only ups and downs localized in time. Over a 111 year time span, the urban sites temperatures have risen to be about 1.5C warmer than the rural sites. So, the much touted rising temperatures in the U.S. are due to the urban heat island effect and not due to a global warming such as has been proposed to be caused by human emissions of CO2 due to the combustion of fossil fuels.”
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2009/12/rural-us-sites-show-no-temperature.html
“Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature.” http://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml
EV: You need to read : “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” by Donna Laframboise to find out about the IPCC and their peer review process, if one could call it anything other than a contrived attempt to make their hoax appear to have the blessing of scientist agreeing on something much like the site, Skeptical Science that you like to refer to. One of your like minded “friends”, Peter Gleick, of the latest in your kind of fraud and deception with the Heartland emails wrote a review of this book and he has received the most number of negative comments that I’ve ever seen on Amazon.
You need to look at more then “rural US”. Take a look at the results by your friend Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller
http://berkeleyearth.org/
http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-decadal-variations.pdf
“We obtained this estimate by choosing 2000 sites randomly from a list of
approximately 30,964 temperature recording stations world-wide that had not been
used by NOAA, GISS, or HadCRU”
“The four curves show a broad trend of “global warming” with some
unevenness”
Note that the amount of warming IS consistent w the “hockey stick”
EV: This is a great site and it shows science at work but the graphs show that 1998 to have the highest temperatures, a sharp drop and now a leveling off of temperature with, as one would expect, Hansen’s GISS showing the most bias because his temps are always the highest. It appears that the graphs on PG. 5, Fig. 3 from 1950 on, the peaks in temps were higher than the present shown on the graphs. They certainly do not show this: “The EARTH IS NOT COOLING!!!!!! The 13 warmest years since 1850 occurred in the last 15 years; 2010 was the warmest year ever when there was a la nina event.” nor this “Note that the amount of warming IS consistent w the “hockey stick” but this is certainly demonstrated to be TRUE for you: “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure”.
Any way, thanks for this site and since you didn’t seem to understand it I will offer you some interesting info from the
Decadal Variations in the Global, Atmospheric Land Temperatures pdf
“Correlation does not imply causation. The association between Atlantic sea surface
temperature fluctuations and land temperature may simply indicate that both sets of
temperatures are responding to the same source of natural variability. However, it is
also interesting to consider whether oceanic changes in the AMO may be driving
short-term fluctuations in land surface temperature. Such fluctuations might
originate as instabilities in the AMO region itself, or they might occur as a non-linear
response to changes elsewhere (such as within the ENSO region).
Since 1975, the AMO has shown a gradual but steady rise from -0.35 C to +0.2 C (see Figure 2), a change of 0.55 C. During this same time, the land-average temperature has increased about 0.8 C. Such changes may be
independent responses to a common forcing (e.g. greenhouse gases); however, it is
also possible that some of the land warming is a direct response to changes in the
AMO region. If the long-term AMO changes have been driven by greenhouse gases
then the AMO region may serve as a positive feedback that amplifies the effect of
greenhouse gas forcing over land. On the other hand, some of the long-term change in
the AMO could be driven by natural variability, e.g. fluctuations in thermohaline
flow. In that case the human component of global warming may be somewhat
overestimated.
This correlation could indicate that the AMO plays an important intermediary role in the
influence of the Pacific ENSO on world climate; alternatively, it might indicate that
variability in the thermohaline flow plays a bigger role than had previously been
recognized. The models could be tested by studying the temperature correlations in
the ocean as a function of location and time.”
EV: You can read through these and see how much honesty and integrity is present with the institutions you seem so willing to protect and parrot their “message”.
7. Removed 4-line header from a couple of .glo files and loaded them into
Matlab. Reshaped to 360r x 720c and plotted; looks OK for global temp
(anomalies) data. Deduce that .glo files, after the header, contain data
taken row-by-row starting with the Northernmost, and presented as ‘8E12.4’.
The grid is from -180 to +180 rather than 0 to 360.
This should allow us to deduce the meaning of the co-ordinate pairs used to
describe each cell in a .grim file (we know the first number is the lon or
column, the second the lat or row – but which way up are the latitudes? And
where do the longitudes break?
There is another problem: the values are anomalies, wheras the ‘public’
.grim files are actual values. So Tim’s explanations (in _READ_ME.txt) are
incorrect..
8. Had a hunt and found an identically-named temperature database file which
did include normals lines at the start of every station. How handy – naming
two different files with exactly the same name and relying on their location
to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!! Re-ran anomdtb:
11. Decided to concentrate on Norwich. Tim M uses Norwich
as the example on the website, so we know it’s at (363,286).
Wrote a prog to extract the relevant 1961-1970 series from
the published output, the generated .glo files, and the
published climatology. Prog is norwichtest.for. Prog also
creates anomalies from the published data, and raw data
from the generated .glo data. Then Matlab prog plotnorwich.m
plots the data to allow comparisons.
First result: works perfectly, except that the .glo data is
all zeros. This means I still don’t understand the structure
of the .glo files. Argh!
12. Trying something *else*. Will write a prog to convert
the 1961-1970 .glo files to a single file with 120 columns
and a row for each non-zero cell. It will be slow. It is a
nuisance because the site power os off this weekend (and
it’s Friday afternoon) so I will get it running at home.
Program is glo2vec.for, and yup it is slow. Started a second
copy on uealogin1 and it’s showing signs of overtaking the
crua6 version that started on Friday (it’s Tuesday now). I’m
about halfway through and the best correlation so far (as
tested by norwichcorr.for) is 0.39 at (170,135) (lon,lat).
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
“Smoke screen alert!”
1. You can’t infer “intent” from a few emails
2. Climate scientists are only human
3. Even in one climate scientist has manipulated data, you can’t infer that all climate scientist manipulate the data (do you discredit ALL “deniers” when it has been shown that MANY (if not most) manipulate the data?)
4. The “deniers” are hoping that you will think the AGW climate science is a “house of cards” – discredit one fact and the whole house comes tumbling down. But there are so many lines of evidence that support AGW that if even one thread is shown to be wrong, there overall evidence is still overwhelming.
Doug –
Congratulations! You managed to write almost 10 responses without either mentioning “weather” or driveling on about CO2 not being responsible for our warm climate! Do you finally understand the BASIC science of global warming? It’s really smple:
1. Greenhouse gases are responsible for our planet being habitable
2. CO2 (a “non-condensing” GHG) is the main driver of the temperature of the Earth
3. Increasing the concentration of GHGs will cause the temperature of the Earth to increase
4. When considering the temperature of the Earth, you have to include the ocean temperatures (which have absorbed 80-90% of the temperature increase caused by the increase of GHG’s over the last 50 years)
5. The Earth is in “energy imbalance” – less energy is radiated that is absorbed from the Sun (hence the Earth IS continuing to warm)
EV: How does what follows fit in with your presenting the lie that the Medieval Warm Period was just confined to Northern Europe? Any one that can believe this kind of crap is a total fool, or do I repeat myself? I can not call this “cherry picking” when you continually bring up the year 2010 as the hottest on record and that also is a total lie. If the lower forty eight had a mild winter, how does that fit in with what Alaska put up with?
“Erdenemunkh has many reasons to leave the ancient lifestyle behind. This year, his Central Mongolian home region of Azraga was hit with a “dzud,” a devastatingly harsh winter that killed as much as 40 percent of many families’ livestock. For a nomadic family, the loss of livestock translates into a direct loss of household income. And that’s not even the worst-case scenario –Erdenemunkh had a neighbor who lost all but one of his 80 cows in the unrelenting cold.
Herders distinguish among three different types of dzud. This year’s was considered a “glass dzud,” where the ground froze solid under a thick layer of snow, prohibiting animals from grazing. With temperatures reaching -40 to -60 degrees Fahrenheit throughout January, it was the coldest winter in local memory, and animals both froze and starved to death. Most families in Azraga said this year was even worse for them than the notorious dzud of 2010, in which almost 8 million head of livestock, or 17 percent of the entire country’s animals, died and the government of Mongolia declared disaster status.”
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/04/year-that-winter-forgot-mongolia.html>
How can this be, EV? This winter being even colder than the 2010 winter. You explain this one with your CO2 crap and how it is burning up the planet and if cold is better than warm, then go right now to where I have been in Mongolia and tell these people that; but, you would not have the courage to do so; would you, being so wrapped in your far left BS.
Who ever impied that “Medieval Warm Period was just confined to Northern Europe”? All I ever said was that the warming was NOT GLOBAL.
You keep talking about the WEATHER. Do you dispute any of the claims (“unconvenieht truths”) on the following blog page (“Yes, Deniers, Global Warming Continues”)?
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/04/07/458637/yes-deniers-global-warming-continues
What don’t understand the BASIC science of global warming? It’s really smple:
1. Greenhouse gases are responsible for our planet being habitable
2. CO2 (a “non-condensing” GHG) is the main driver of the temperature of the Earth
3. Increasing the concentration of GHGs will cause the temperature of the Earth to increase
4. When considering the temperature of the Earth, you have to include the ocean temperatures (which have absorbed 80-90% of the temperature increase caused by the increase of GHG’s over the last 50 years)
5. The Earth is in “energy imbalance” – less energy is radiated that is absorbed from the Sun (hence the Earth IS continuing to warm)
What do you make of this EV? How does this fit into your preposterous scenario of the burning up planet. More lies please; but, make them more believable than the ones you told about the organizations that you claim do not get federal funding for their “climate change” propaganda, presented on my dime regarding something that I know is a hoax.
“Alaska has blown away all records for sea ice this winter. Four of the five iciest years around Alaska have been since 2007. Look for the MSM to respond by publishing stories about drowning Polar Bears who can’t find any ice.”
http://www.real-science.com/alaska-has-the-most-ice-ever-recorded
Polar Bear Blog – October 1, 2009 – More Bears, Less People..
“Back in June, the Churchill River did not ‘break’, the term given when the last ice jam opens up and flows out with the tide, until June 16. For years, the port of Churchill has kept records of break-up and 2009 tied for the latest breakup in the last fifty years. A cool summer further contributed to a good, long ice season for the bears.”
“Other exciting news from Churchill this summer includes the sighting of a mother with triplets along the coast of Hudson Bay. First reported by the summer tundra buggy tour, this is a very positive sign for Churchill’s bear population. Most bears that show up in the Churchill area can be considered as the periphery of the western Hudson Bay population, usually young, old or nutritionally challenged. Most healthy bears stay far away from Churchill until late in the season.”
http://www.polarbearalley.com/
Here is another one for you from the same source:
Polar Bear Blog – October 5, 2009 – Good Ol’ Days Are Here Again… Sort of
“Should be interesting to see how this season shapes up with the impressive ice conditions on Hudson Bay. Barring an unseasonably warm October (it is marginally above normal but not enough to make a big difference…), 2009 should go down on record as one of the longer ice seasons since 1971, the beginning of Environment Canada’s modern weather records, definitely the longest ice season since 1992 – the year in which the ice season was extended due to the global cooling caused by the eruption of Mount pinatubo.”
http://www.polarbearalley.com/
This one is about the bears;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545036/Polar-bears-thriving-as-the-Arctic-warms-up.html
Since you and Al made the polar bear your canary in the mine, you need to explain why their numbers are up and the LAST one is not standing around on the last ice cube in the Arctic Ocean.
I thought you had given up talking about the WEATHER!
Look at “A Visualization of March Heat Breaking 15,000 Records in the U.S.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/video/archive/2012/04/a-visualization-of-march-heat-breaking-15-000-records-in-the-us/255677/
What climate change scientists are saying is that
1) Climate change makes events like these (at both extremes – hot and cold) more likely
2) A specific extreme weather event may not have been CAUSED by global warming, but the event most likely would not have been so extreme w/o global warming.
3) We are getting to the point where some exteme events MAY be attributable to global warming
EV: This is what the WWF tells you and you no doubt believe them, don’t you?
“Polar bears are in serious danger of going extinct due to global warming.
Polar bears need our help and protection to ensure a long, healthy future for the species. The best way you can help polar bears is by reducing your carbon footprint and working with National Wildlife Federation to campaign to reduce carbon pollution.”
http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Wildlife-Library/Mammals/Polar-Bear.aspx>
“Healthy polar bear count confounds doomsayers
paul waldie
WINNIPEG— From Thursday’s Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Apr. 04, 2012 8:44PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Apr. 05, 2012 5:05AM EDT
The debate about climate change and its impact on polar bears has intensified with the release of a survey that shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing.
The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/healthy-polar-bear-count-confounds-doomsayers/article2392523/
This makes one believe that some one is lying and that some one has an agenda and that agenda has always relied on lies to propagate its story line and the truth has never mattered, has it EV?
“Cherry picking alert!!!!”
One single “healthy polar bear count” DOES NOT confound climate scientists.
In 2005, five of 19 polar bear subpopulations were known to be in decline (5 stable, 2 increasing, 7 unknown); by 2009, eight of the 19 subpopulations were known to be in decline (3 stable, one increasing, 7 unknown).
I attended a leture by Prof Lindzen (of MIT) who showed a graph of the polar bear population. The numbers had been declining, but then showed an sharp increase – his “proof” that global warming was not a problem. What he neglected to mention was that the “sharp increase” coincided with a ban on polar bear hunting. So of course the polulation increased – correlation is NOT causation.
WAKE UP!!!!
What was it like the last time CO2 levels were as high as they are now?
A vivid picture of our climate’s future can be found in our past. Currently, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have reached 393 parts per million (ppm). The last time CO2 was that high was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years.
Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008).
Doug – is this what you want to commit our planet to?
Meteorologist Mark Nolan stated: “I’m not sure which is more arrogant – to say we caused [global warming] or that we can fix it.”
EV: It is a certainty that Dr. Robert B. Laughlin knows far and away more about this subject that you and your fellow foaming at the mouth “alarmist” do and he has won a Nobel prize. Name one of your fellow “chicken little” mentality type folks that have won a Nobel Prize.
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
EV: Neither of these two folks below ever won a Nobel Prize for anything, did they?
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” – Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
EV: Pay some attention to what Huxley said and answer where you stand on this regarding YOUR agw.
“Scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin.” Huxley
You seem so worried about Sea levels and act like YOU are going to do something about what they do. I know that you still use the same amount of fossil fuel produced energy that you always have because I rather doubt that, if you heat your home or what ever cave you lay around in, you use only wood, you probably do not use a tallow candle or a whale oil lamp for light and if you go some where, do you saddle the horse or walk? I imagine that you do use food that was raised using fossil fuels to produce and distribute and if that is the case you are a terrible hypocrite, but in the minds of you people that think that you just have to be members of some elite group because you “believe”, like your hero, Al Gore, who left a car out side of a venue in defiance of Swedish law idle for an hour and he also took a private jet to get to Sweden and then while screaming like you do about sea levels flooding everything up to the next to top floor of the Empire State Building, (I, like you, exaggerate some times but I make the exaggeration known, unlike what you do) and soon, he buys beach front property in California. If you think that these kinds of lies and hypocrisy helps to make your case, just keep it up.
Sea Level Drop
The latest NASA satellite data show that sea levels have dropped 6 mm over the last year – the biggest drop ever recorded since satellite data has been taken. This is hardly the kind of acceleration Rahmstorf had in mind. You’d think the media would be falling all over themselves to report this good news. They have not. Only a tiny few German media outlets have reported the plummeting sea level news.
http://notrickszone.com/2011/08/31/der-spiegel-global-warming-now-causes-sea-level-drop-throug
Why do you keep “cherry picking” the sea level data. I’m losing track of the number of times i’ve tried to point this out. See http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/ for the 130 year trend (another “hockey stick”)
And you keep recycling your old,tired arguments. Of course “Climate is beyond our power to control” – but we can INFLUENCE it by adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Why are you refusing to talk about the basic science?
EV: you are a strange and sad individual if you can not understand that the sea levels have been raising since the end of the last ice age some 12,000 years ago, no argument there from me. It is only you “chicken little’s” that claim rapid and unprecedented rise in sea levels that make me wonder about your intelligence and honesty; but, with you there is no puzzle to either of the two issues, intelligence and honesty.
It appears that either you do not read your own sources or that you can not understand what you pretend to read:
“Our most recent estimate of changes in global averaged sea level since 1993 are estimated from satellite altimeter data (red) and since 1880 by combining in situ sea level data from coastal tide gauges and the spatial patterns of variability determined from satellite altimeter data (blue).”
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/
Evidently EV, you were unable to notice that the red line on the graph is in decline and also be appraised of some “climategate” type altering of the tide gauge readings of late since it is a known that the levels are not increasing like your models have predicted.
I guess you rely on nonsense like “the red line on the graph is in decline and also be appraised of some “climategate”” because you don’t understand the importance of long term trends and you are trying to change the discussion away from the most most important facts. Do you deny the 130 year long trend of sea level rise? A slight drop for a few years does not mean much, patricularly when there is good explanation (heavier than normal percipitation). Let look a the FACTS
(1) The ocean is warming is this causes the water to expand, resulting sea level rise
(2) The overall trend for glaciers is melting, resulting sea level rise
EV: Thanks for presenting this site: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/ that confirms what I had presented to you in this site: http://notrickszone.com/2011/08/31/der-spiegel-global-warming-now-causes-sea-level-drop-through-weather-shifts/
It appears that both you and your hero who we do not hear much from of late and for that we can be extremely thankful, Al Gore, need to take a deep breath and try to gain some scientific facts before you try to push your anthropogenic global warming hoax further.
Do you deny the 130 year long trend of sea level rise? A slight drop for a few years does not mean much, patricularly when there is good explanation (heavier than normal percipitation). Let look a the FACTS
(1) The ocean is warming is this causes the water to expand, resulting sea level rise
(2) The overall trend for glaciers is melting, resulting sea level rise
EV: You really need to do some research before you let every one in on just how irrational and delusional you really are. You had best WAKE UP!!!! because this period was not so bad as you seem to want to make it out to be.
“The Pliocene, 5.3 to 2.6 million years ago,* was a time of global cooling after the warmer Miocene. The cooling and drying of the global environment may have contributed to the enormous spread of grasslands and savannas during this time. The change in vegetation undoubtedly was a major factor in the rise of long-legged grazers who came to live in these areas.”
“Over the course of the Pliocene, the global climate became cooler and more arid. The beginning of the epoch saw numerous fluctuations in temperature, which gave way to the general cooling trend towards the end of the Pliocene. This long term cooling, actually started in the Eocene and continued up to the ice ages of the Pleistocene. During the Pliocene, large polar ice caps started to develop and Antarctica became the frozen continent that it is today.”
“It is uncertain what caused this climate cooling during the Pliocene. Changes in the amount of heat transported by oceans has been suggested as one possible explanation; higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may also have contributed. It is also possible that the raising of the Himalayas, caused by plate collisions between India and Asia, accelerated the cooling process.”
EV: What is stated by Berkley at this site should really blow your mind and make you wonder when they say that “higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may also have contributed” to “the global climate became cooler”. Just what is one to believe, EV? This was as close to mentioning CO2 that I noticed and it was not in a context that you would like, is it EV?
“Generally though, the climate of the Pliocene is thought to have been much warmer than it is today. The warmest phase was in the middle of the epoch, the interval between three and four million years ago. The climate was especially mild at high latitudes and certain species of both plants and animals existed several hundred kilometers north of where their nearest relatives exist today. Less ice at the poles also resulted in a sea level that is thought to have been about 30 meters higher than today’s.”
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/tertiary/pliocene.php
This demonstrates that basically CO2 has had next to no influence on the earth’s climate in the past or in the present age, The Neocene, that we enjoy today of moderate temperatures that allow for the existence of present day life forms on earth such as “chicken littles” that are fun to toy with.
Au contraire, CO2 is the main driver of the Earth’s temperature. Do you want to commit the Earth to a climate like the past , where the sea levels wouild be about 30 meters higher than today? Again , here the undisputed basic science:
1. Greenhouse gases are responsible for our planet being habitable
2. CO2 (a “non-condensing” GHG) is the main driver of the temperature of the Earth
3. Increasing the concentration of GHGs (primarily from the burning of fossil fuels) will cause the temperature of the Earth to increase
4. When considering the temperature of the Earth, you have to include the ocean temperatures (which have absorbed 80-90% of the temperature increase caused by the increase of GHG’s over the last 50 years)
5. The Earth is in “energy imbalance” – less energy is radiated that is absorbed from the Sun (hence the Earth is continuing to warm)
I’m sure that EV can dream up some lie or link to Skeptical Science to dispute what this person who has lived with the elements in this area notorious for horrible storms and bad weather to try to maintain that what he reports is not true. I know who I will believe and it will not be some one that consistently makes a mockery of the truth.
Published April 10, 2012
“In my 26 years of fishing, this season’s were the worst conditions I had ever experienced – the storms, the ice,” Captain Keith Colburn told Fox411’s Pop Tarts column. “I can’t really describe it – my heart was racing, and we were on constant high alert. You realize quickly that you aren’t in control of your own destiny. Mother nature is. We were tested on a lot of different fronts.”
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/04/10/deadliest-catch-captain-keith-colburn-says-this-season-conditions-most-horrific/?intcmp=features
Sounds like one of the predicted effects of climate change to me.
Delusional and dishonest fools have nothing to worry about when they feel that they can claim that if it is a warm event, then it is global warming and climate change and, on the other hand, if it is a cold event then that is merely weather and the event is also a result of their hoax, anthropogenic global warming. If one could go to Las Vegas and operate under these rules, one would soon break the house and be banned from the tables because how could one lose?
Where do you come up with this nonsense (“Delusional and dishonest fools have nothing to worry about when they feel that they can claim that if it is a warm event, then it is global warming and climate change and, on the other hand, if it is a cold event then that is merely weather”) – I guess you invent it to try bolster you case. Most climate scientists think that global warming “loads the dice” in favor of more extreme events.
Enviro says:
April 8, 2012 at 12:21 pm
“Just trying to make you understand ths AGW is real. In past geologic times, there were aligators in the Arctic and sea levels were hundreds of feet higher – are those the conditions that you’d like condem the Earth to?”
I do not know if this goes to the top of the inane, totally lacking in logic or thought of a long list of similar remarks you have put forth, EV. It is obvious that you will continue to do so and that is what makes this exchange with you so much fun to find out what the latest absurd comment will be.
Yes, during the earth’s 4.5 billion years of existence there have been multitudes of climate changes, from the whole earth warm enough for what you maintain to be true for the arctic and also for trees that have left their fossilized leaves in the shale deposits on Antarctica. How much of this has been due to climate change or due to tectonic shifts of the continents is something I would not ask you because you would not know even how to find the answer; but, one thing is certain and that is that there were no anthropogenic influences on ANY of these changes.
It is easy to see that you are so crippled by your believe that the trace gas, CO2, is responsible for the earth’s climate that you can not look at this issue realistically and that is truly sad. While you naively take this route for reasons unknown to even you, others do so to enrich themselves by pushing this hoax and that is criminal, and to destroy peoples trust in science while they pursue their self serving, monetarily enriching, control grabbing scam is beyond being criminal when their action effects billions of people by attempting to deny them the use of energy that has brought humanity from a life of a simple, hard and short existence to one of pleasure and accomplishment, for those fortunate enough to have this energy, never before seen on earth and that energy comes from coal, nuclear and hydro produced electricity and for transportation almost exclusively from petroleum or natural gas. I expect EV to maintain that a Airbus A-380 can fly using batteries.
It seems that with the stupid comment that EV made, they want to discount that this occurred after the event that they seem to imagine would be so horrendous, a warm arctic, and they must be once more reminded that if something is alive, warmth is much preferable to cold any day and also they should be aware that where alligators and crocodiles live today there are also humans and many other life forms coexisting with them; but, to realize these facts would require thought and logic and that is something that has been shown to be totally lacking in this individual’s modus operandi .
“Abrupt climate change, on the other hand, has very different causes and effects. While climate is often remarkably steady with expected norms of daily and seasonal fluctuations, paleoclimate research has shown that climate can in fact change very quickly, in a matter of seasons and years rather than centuries or millennia as was previously thought.
One example of abrupt climate change is an event that happened some 11,600 years ago at the termination of the Younger Dryas cold event, which was the last blast of cold climate at the end of the last Ice Age some (note #1)Ice core records from Greenland show in less than a decade there was a sudden warming of around 15 degrees Celsius (27oF) of the annual mean temperature. At the same time a doubling of annual precipitation occurred. Researcher Richard Alley suggests that not only does the climate system have dials that slowly alter climate patterns, there are also switches that can suddenly shift climate in dramatic ways. (Source: Alley, et al. 1993. Graphic above from CLIVAR.) This abrupt event can be found in paleo records from many parts of the world, although not necessarily to such an extreme degree.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/abrupt.html
Note #1, I had to edit NOAA’s presentation to make it more understandable, imagine that.
“Due to variations in the Earth’s orbital process, the planet has experienced a series of Ice Ages over the past 2.6 million years. The most recent cycle culminated in the Last Glacial Maximum (or LGM) some 18,000 years ago, the world– especially the northern hemisphere– was a very different place than it is today. Ice covered large areas– nearly 32% of the Earth’s land area, sea level was about 120 meters lower than it is today, and many large, non-extinct mammals such as mammoths roamed the northern lands (Ruddiman, 2001).
The Ice Ages which have dominated the Earth’s environment for around the past two million years are thought to be caused primarily by orbital fluctuations that, while changing the sunlight received by only a few percent, have major impact on climate systems. These orbital forces include the 22,000 year cycle of precession, 100,000 and 400,000 cycles of eccentricity, and 41,000-year cycles of Earth’s obliquity or axial tilt. Scientists are still researching exactly what mechanisms trigger the flux and flow of Ice Ages.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci100k.html
EV: I know from past experience with you that you lack the ability to read and understand so I will high light this FACT for you and we are talking about CLIMATE and not weather. “The Ice Ages which have dominated the Earth’s environment for around the past two million years are thought to be caused primarily by orbital fluctuations that, while changing the sunlight received by only a few percent, have major impact on climate systems.” Did you see the lack of any mention of your hated CO2 in the above presentation?
Yes – the ice ages were caused by orbital variations – but the CO2 feedback (which influences the H2O feedback) is what influenced the dramatic changes. I hate to keep repeating what I’ve said before, but you don’t seem understand the BASIC science of global warming. It’s really smple:
1. Greenhouse gases are responsible for our planet being habitable
2. CO2 (a “non-condensing” GHG) is the main driver of the temperature of the Earth
3. Increasing the concentration of GHGs will cause the temperature of the Earth to increase
4. When considering the temperature of the Earth, you have to include the ocean temperatures (which have absorbed 80-90% of the temperature increase caused by the increase of GHG’s over the last 50 years)
5. The Earth is in “energy imbalance” – less energy is radiated that is absorbed from the Sun (hence the Earth IS continuing to warm)
You have yet to present anything which refutes the above 5 points
And what was it like the last time CO2 levels were as high as they are now?
A vivid picture of our climate’s future can be found in our past. Currently, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have reached 393 parts per million (ppm). The last time CO2 was that high was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years.
Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008).
Doug – is this what you want to commit our planet to?
I. There is no argument from most people that greenhouse gases are responsible for our planet being habitable, unlike the moon and Mars that basically has no atmosphere. Note the key word here, EV, and that is atmosphere.
I hope that there are some out there that realize the earth’s atmosphere is made up of 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, ( 99.03% of the atmosphere is made up of these two gases) .93% argon and .0001% neon, helium and krypton for constant components and .4% water vapor that constitutes 95% of what cause the green house affect and we had best not forget CO2 at .036% and the rest is made up of trace gases such as CH4,SO2,03 and NO, and NO2.? These trace gases are very important, H2O being the most important because it contributes 95% to the green house effect, and with out these gases the surface of the earth would too cool/cold to support life as we know it.
2. When will you ever use logic and just plain common sense to realize that a trace gas that is 1 & 1/2 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere, [#1]as this site that I presented you with before but is beyond your ability to understand and you never gave me any answer for what the percentage of CO2 there is at 18,000′ feet compared to sea level? I will present you with some examples to try to get you to understand that CO2 IS NOT the driver of the earth’s atmosphere and never has been. Water vapor makes up 95% of what constitutes the green house effect on earth.
“It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
This below should try to get you to realize just what one part per million is comparable to, but you are incapable of understanding what the average eight year old child can grasp.
One inch in 16 miles,
One penny in $10,000.
I know that you understand that these 112 additional ppm are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn’t it be a task to be told to sort out the 392 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000.
At 392 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
Let’s picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO2 compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 metres high (1063ft). If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO2 would be 8.75 centimetres of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimetres (1.5 inches)
EV wants people to believe that this trace gas is the driver of the earth’s climate. Can EV tell me what they have ever been able to “trap” with a gas? It is unbelievable that anyone could be so naive and stupid to expect others to be taken in by this scam that they can’t seem to see through on their own, Oh well.
3. Milankovic cycles mesh very well with greenhouse gas forcing in explaining ice ages. Milankovic cycles are wobbles in the Earth’s orbit that trigger entering or exiting a glacier period. The problem is the Milankovic forcing is too small to account for the actual changes. So when at the end of the glacial period, as the orbital forcing triggers a small warming, the warming evaporates some CO2 from the ocean, the CO2 warms the air further, causing more CO2 to evaporate, etc, until voila the Earth exits the glacial period. So the two forcings work together where only one would be insufficient. In short, increases of CO2 has never cause the earth to “burn up” in the past when the levels were many times higher than today; so why would that happen now? Also EV, where is the anthropogenic influence in any of the earth’s past climate cycles? There is none
The first thing one notices is how little correlation CO2 has with temperature –
………………Mean Surface Temp C………Mean CO2 ppm
Carboniferous……………14…………………………800
Neogene…………………..14…………………………280
………………Mean Surface Temp C………Mean CO2 ppm
Cretaceous…………….18………………………1700
Paleogene……………..18………………………..500
………………Mean Surface Temp C………Mean CO2 ppm
Permian…………………16………………………..900
Jurassic…………………16.5……………………1950
4. I have no idea how many times or ways I have to answer this question, but here it is again:
“As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit. It represents in a simple way how ocean currents carry warm surface waters from the equator toward the poles and moderate global climate.” [The Global Conveyer Belt has suddenly stopped for several speculated reason in the past and caused dramatic and rapid climate changes always to the cold side; therefore, warm is preferable to cold any day]
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-water-cycle/
5. This one is so ludicrous because the earth is NOT in any kind of imbalance because, I imagine that EV wants one to believe,of an increase in CO2 that is an extremely minor green house gas. I offered this challenge to EV before and got some foolish bunch of BS that they wanted one to believe was an experiment with introducing “just a little bit” of CO2 to nitrogen & O2 and then take a photo or some such nonsense.
EV should know that every lab experiment every done trying to correlate “warming” with CO2 has failed! If you can show me some empirical test results I would be glad to look at them – NOTE not computer models or explanations – test results. Everyone is well aware of IR radiation on CO2 and that CO2 infused atmospheres cool slower but to date there has not been one reproducible experiment that links CO2 to warming in the atmosphere – a rather inconvenient fact wouldn’t you say? I would like for EV to supply me with the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing.
#1: ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2
http://greenparty.ca/blogs/169/2009-01-03/ppm-co2-altitude-and-mass-co2-atmosphere-8520-metres-beyond-which-there-practic
Re #5 (“earth is NOT in any kind of imbalance”) – see
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/EarthsGlobalEnergyBudget.pdf, which shows that the earth absorbed an average of about .9 watts/square meter annually from March 2000 to May 2004 (a short time period, admittedly, but that was based on the best data available)
Also – the oceans have been warming for a while – perhaps over 100 years. That energy must come from an energy imbalance.
Re #1 and #2The importance CO2
This is what you seem unwilling to confront – CO2 is the driver of the Earth’s temperature. It’s really simple – what is your problem with understanding it?
Let’s take this one step at a time. Here is a list of the GHG’s and their residency time:
Gas Approximative time of residence in the atmosphère
CO2 100 years
Methane 12 years
Nitrous oxide 120 years
Halocarbons from several weeks up to 50.000 years
Water vapor 10 days
CO2 and Methane are “forcings” – CAUSING the temperature to change as their atmospheric concentration changes. (they absorb the infrared radiation and warm the atmosphere)
Water vapor is a “feedback” – changing in response to temperature changes
If the “non condensing” GHG’s were removed from the atmosphere , the “condensing” GHG’s would, over time, “condense out” of the atmosphere
“water vapor is indeed responsible for a major portion of Earth’s warming over the past century and for projected future warming. However, water vapor is not the cause of this warming. This is a critical, if subtle, distinction between the role of greenhouse gases as either forcings or feedbacks. In this case, anthropogenic emissions of CO2, methane, and other gases are warming the Earth. This rising average temperature increases evaporation rates and atmospheric water vapor concentrations. Those, in turn, result in additional warming.”
see http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/
“Honolulu International Airport (IATA: HNL, ICAO: PHNL, FAA LID: HNL) is the principal aviation gateway of the City & County of Honolulu and the State of Hawaii and is identified as one of the busiest airports in the United States, with traffic now exceeding 21 million passengers a year and rising.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honolulu_International_Airport
I wonder if the Mauna Loa CO2 report take into consideration that in 1984 there was a total of 5,261,373 flights in Hawaii and in 2010 the Total Statewide was 30,479,154 or 5.79 times more flights and I know that you know what powers these aircraft?
The obvious question is how much of this increase in CO2 is from aircraft and how much of it is from other sources?
Such a stupid question does not deserve a thoughtful response.
EV; How could one expect a thoughtful response from some one who does not even understand the question? I well imagine that you could see no connection between the number of flights and the increase in CO2 when you are saying that it is the use of fossil fuels that is causing this earth threatening increase in your dreaded substance and, if I’m not mistaken ALL of the millions of airline flights are powered by a petroleum fuel.
Doug
Re the Volt:
GM’s Former Vice Chairman, Bob Lutz, slammed GOP media pundits yesterday for spreading “pure fiction” about the Chevy Volt and other electric vehicles.
Conservative commentators — led by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News — have taken every opportunity to tear down the Chevy Volt, calling it “crappy,” a “Fred Flinstone car,” and an “exploding Obamamobile.” They’ve even called Volt drivers “dorks.”
The attacks have gotten so intense, hardcore Republicans are now slamming the onslaught of ludicrous comments. Lutz, a Republican who once called climate change a “total crock of shit,” has become increasingly critical of fellow conservatives who have undertaken a vicious media campaign against the Volt.
Speaking yesterday at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think thank, Lutz called out the “knee-jerk” pundits who have tried to turn the Volt into a political joke. E&E News reported on his comments:
“The unfortunate thing is that because electric cars are very associated with the left-wing environmental green movement to combat global warming and reduce [carbon dioxide], the idea of vehicle electrification triggers this visceral reaction on the part of conservatives — which is, if it’s electric it must be a product of the left-wing, Democratic enviro-political machine, therefore we hate it,” said Lutz, a self-described conservative.
“This is an unfortunate, knee-jerk reaction because what the Volt and other vehicles like it are about is … shifting portions of the American mobile sector onto a more efficient and domestically produced power source,” he said.
“No electric vehicle has ever caught fire [in use], and yet the right is constantly talking about the flammability, overheating, fire hazard of the electric vehicle,” he told the conservative audience. “Folks, it’s pure fiction. Please get it out of your heads.”
Last month, Lutz wrote a column in Forbes lamenting that “all the icons of conservatism are (shock, horror!) deliberately not telling the truth” about the Volt.
Lutz called Charles Krauthammer — his former “hero-figure on the Right” — a member of the “the list of right-wing pundits I no longer take seriously” for claiming that the Volt was an example of Obama’s “interventionist policies.”
In fact, the Volt has been in development since 2006 — two years before Obama was even elected.
Lutz isn’t the only conservative who is roiled by the GOP punditocracy’s campaign against electric vehicles. Last month, Lee Speckerman, another self-professed lover of Fox News, went on the network’s morning show to bash its commentators’ “fetish for demonizing the Volt.” Speckerman argued the Volt was “the iPhone of the American automobile industry.”
Despite the continued attacks and a cycle of very sluggish sales, March was GM’s best sales month ever for the Volt.
EV is very hung up on the VOLT and that is good because he doesn’t know anything about the earth’s climate or CO2. I really wonder if the one that spreads all of this nonsense that is not proud enough of it to use their own name is the proud owner of a VOLT. I remind him of some particulars about the VOLT. If it was any good and was what the public wanted, why would it have to be so heavily subsidized and it still does not sell. I imagine that EV, being a neo Marxist, imagines that people should be FORCED to buy the thing.
“GM has just announced it will be idling the plant (and the 1,300 workers at that plant) where the “game changing” Chevy Volt electric car is – uh, was – built. GM says it’s only temporary – until they figure out how to “align production with demand.” It could be a long wait for those workers.
GM, like every car company, has embraced the politics of green because it leads to taxpayer-financed green. Think Solyndra was a boondoggle? The Mackinac Center for Public Policy estimates that the actual cost-per-car of each Volt, once all the federal subsidies are factored in, comes to $250,000 or $3 billion, total. (Lookee here for more.)
Guess who paid for that?
It wasn’t GM’s money. It was your money. And mine. And the money taken from millions of other taxpayers, all poured into the coffers of GM to further the advancement of otherwise economically untenable projects that would never have see the light of day except for the fact that we have a system of crony capitalism that distorts the free market like a funhouse mirror.”
http://epautos.com/2012/03/03/the-volt-sleeps-with-the-fishes/
Besides natural gas there is at this time no alternative for petroleum for vehicles but we should not forget the Chevy Volt & this little gem to help the American working middle class out, lots of jobs created with this one, in Finland, that broke down on its first run out of the showroom in the US and had to be hauled back in on a diesel powered truck.
“Vice President Joseph Biden heralded the Energy Department’s $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company called Fisker as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs. But two years after the loan was announced, the job of assembling the flashy electric Fisker Karma sports car has been outsourced to Finland.”
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41545
“Despite the continued attacks and a cycle of very sluggish sales, March was GM’s best sales month ever for the Volt.” It sounds like Government Motors finally sold one of these things and it was probably to a government agency because no one else, including EV, is buying them. GM’s Former Vice Chairman, Bob Lutz is also one of the reason why the company went broke in the first place so his endorsement is really worth a lot, right EV.
Now we have EV making this totally contradictory statement:
“Do you deny the 130 year long trend of sea level rise? A slight drop for a few years does not mean much, patricularly when there is good explanation (heavier than normal percipitation). Let look a the FACTS
(1) The ocean is warming is this causes the water to expand, resulting sea level rise
(2) The overall trend for glaciers is melting, resulting sea level rise”
I attempted to explain to EV that the sea level has been raising since the end of the last ice age and that has been far longer ago than the 130 year trend that they ignorantly mention; so, where is there any argument here? Now they are showing just how confused they really are, as though there was ever any question regarding this point of being confused and unable to use logic or, for EV, the least common of the senses. So heavier than normal precipitation cause the sea levels to DROP? Where is the logic in that absurdity? Where does this precipitation go after it is in cloud form? One would think that it will end up in the seas but not using EV’s “logic”.
“Sea Level Rise: Still Slowing Down
Back in the summer of 2009, we ran a piece titled “Sea Level Rise: An Update Shows a Slowdown” in which we showed that the much ballyhooed “faster rate of sea level rise during the satellite era” was actually slowing down.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/04/07/sea-level-rise-still-slowing-down/
As for your #1 irrelevant statement. You CAN not understand this, CAN you? “As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit. It represents in a simple way how ocean currents carry warm surface waters from the equator toward the poles and moderate global climate.” What part of 1,000 years do you not understand?
I have seen where the sea levels in the past have been much higher than at present as shown by the limestone islands and coast that grace the Andaman Sea coast of Thailand, I have seen the signs of much higher sea levels during the two times I was out in Vietnam’s Halong Bay that has spectacular limestone islands. Most recently I saw the signs of a much higher sea level when I was on Zanzibar and saw where the Indian Ocean has eroded the ancient coral that is the foundation for this island and was much higher in the past.
“The first results from the lab’s CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets”) experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth’s clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.
This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.”
“When Dr Kirkby first described the theory in 1998, he suggested cosmic rays “will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/
While in EV’s eyes this is a “test”:
“Actually very simple:
1. Shine an incandescent light (lot of infrared radiation – otherwise known as “heat”)
2. Take a movie of the light in the infrared range
3. Put a bottle of nitrogen and oxygen between the light and the camera
4. Start the camera
5. Add a little CO2 to the bottle (only a tiny bit is needed)
6. Watch the incredible reduction infrared radiation that the movie captures
This proves that CO2 blocks infrared radiation.
Or this:
Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw
This is the test that Dr. Kirkby to prove that CO2 is not the driver of the earth’s climate and CO2 wasn’t even in the test that was carried out at CERN.
“CERN is no fringe laboratory pursuing crackpot theories at some remote backwater. CERN, based in Geneva, is the European Organization for Nuclear Research, a 50-yearold institution, originally founded by 12 countries and now counting 20 country-members. It services 6,500 particle physicists — half of the world’s total — in 500 institutes and universities around the world. It is building the $2.4-billion Large Hadron Collider, the world’s most powerful particle accelerator. And it is home to Jasper Kirkby’s long-languished CLOUD project, among the most significant scientific experiments to be proposed in our time. Finally, almost a decade after Dr. Kirkby’s proposal first saw the light of day, the funding is in place and the work has begun in earnest.”
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684
“CLOUD uses a particle beam from CERN as a stand-in for cosmic rays, and fires them through an ultra-clean steel chamber filled with select atmospheric gases, to see if and how particles that could nucleate clouds are formed. Project head Jasper Kirkby proposed the experiment back in 1998. But it had a hard time getting off the ground – perhaps in part because Kirkby received some bad press for emphasizing the importance of cosmic rays to climate change (see this story from the National Post). CLOUD finally got going in 2006, and they started work with the full kit in November 2009 (here’s a CERN video update about that).”
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2010/12/sunny_days_for_cloud_experimen.html
“To find out, Kirkby and his team are bringing the atmosphere down to Earth in an experiment called Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD). The team fills a custom-built chamber with ultrapure air and chemicals believed to seed clouds: water vapour, sulphur dioxide, ozone and ammonia. They then bombard the chamber with protons from the same accelerator that feeds the Large Hadron Collider, the world’s most powerful particle smasher. As the synthetic cosmic rays stream in, the group carefully samples the artificial atmosphere to see what effect the rays are having.
Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten.”
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html
OK, EV, the above describes a TEST and experiment and do you see CO2 mentioned?
“CERN’s 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised.
The first results from the lab’s CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets”) experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth’s clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.
This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.
Unsurprisingly, it’s a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a “heliocentric” rather than “anthropogenic” approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.” (Imagine that EV, the sun has an influence on the earth’s climate.)
“Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature (pdf):
“[I]t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.
The work involves over 60 scientists in 17 countries.
Veteran science editor Nigel Calder, who brought the theory to wide public attention with the book The Chilling Stars, co-authored with the father of the theory Henrik Svensmark, has an explanation and background on his blog, here, and offers possible reasons on why the research, mooted in the late 1990s, has taken so long.
Svensmark, who is no longer involved with the CERN experiment, says he believes the solar-cosmic ray factor is just one of four factors in climate. The other three are: volcanoes, a “regime shift” that took place in 1977, and residual anthropogenic components.
When Dr Kirkby first described the theory in 1998, he suggested cosmic rays “will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/
“Sunspots and cosmic rays anticorrelate because sunspots are the result of a lot of magnetic field lines caused by circulating charges in the sun getting their act together and deflecting cosmic rays from the cosmos, not from the sun, from hitting the earth, not all, but quite a few. There is a clear experimental effect – lots of sunspots, less cosmic rays hitting Colorado. At the same time there are less clouds (Svensmark) when there are less cosmic rays. Less clouds means the earth heats up. So its a two step process. More sunspots, less cosmic rays, warmer earth. During the last 50 years or so, there have been record numbers of sunspots, low cosmic ray fluxes and somewhat higher temperatures. Read Nir Shaviv’s analysis of the effect leading to a maximum estimate of 1.3 degrees change for a doubling of CO2, assuming everything besides cosmic rays is due to CO2. That agrees with Roy Spencer’s latest CO2 sensitivity calc. And both of these are very generous to CO2.
Manmade CO2 is a disappearingly small effect.”
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html
Doug –
Thought you might like to know that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) is in the process of revising it’s statment on climate change. Though currently in “draft” mode, the new statement makes the unequivocal case for human-induced climate change.
You can read more about it on one of my favorite blogs – http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/19/467274/nasas-jameshansen-reviews-draft-american-meteorological-society-climate-statement-stronger-but-still-inadequate/
(I know you don’t like Hansen or the ThinkProgress Web site, but please pay attention to what the new AMS statement will contain)
WAKE UP!!!!!
Doug –
It’s been fun “jousting” with you about climate change – you’ve really taught me a lot about the mental state of “deniers”:
1. They like to insult the “believers” – perhaps because that gives them a sense of moral authority when the facts are against them
2. They so believe that climate change is a hoax that they are unwilling to accept any science that proves them wrong (e.g., CO2 is the main driver of climate change, significantly increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere (e.g., to 450ppm) will significantly warm the Earth’s atmosphere (perhaps by 2 degrees C for 450 ppm CO2), etc.)
3. They do not believe there will be significant consequences with a warmer world (high sea levels, more droughts, floods, heat waves, cold snaps, etc.) and do not understand that the costs of inaction probably exceed the costs of action
4. They cherry-pick the data and grasp at irrelevant facts, assuming that if they can find a single flaw in the vast amount of data that supports climate change, then the “theory” of AGW will be invalidated
5. They are unwilling to take seriously the statements by the worlds’ preeminent scientific organizations regarding climate change, all of which express something like ” man-made climate change is real and poses a threat to every living thing on the earth.”
6. They think that tens of thousands of scientist can engage in an elaborate hoax
7. They are unwilling to admit that the “denial machine” is driven by (a) the fossil fuel industry, which stands to lose huge profits when the economy “decarbonizes”, (b) citizens who distrust science because it contradicts their other beliefs (those who deny evolution, etc.), (c) those who distrust the government because doing something about climate change requires some government regulations (e.g., carbon taxes/fees)
8. They are unwilling to concede that there is even a remote possibility the AGW is a threat to civilization, and are unwilling to go along with even simple “no regrets” steps to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
I’ll be traveling most of the next two months, so this is my last post to this site.
I wonder what EV and his hero, James Hansen, (might as well mention his other like minded hero, Al Gore, who claimed that agw skeptics were people that didn’t believe that man had walked on the moon when some of these people actually did WALK ON THE MOON)
“Two Apollo-era astronauts and two prominent former NASA scientists will speak at The Heartland Institute’s Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-7), taking place in Chicago on May 21-23. The four men were among 49 signatories to a March 28 letter to NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) urging the agencies to cease their “unbridled advocacy” of anthropogenic global warming. Dr. Harrison Schmitt, the first scientist and last man to walk on the moon in the Apollo 17 mission, and Apollo 7 lunar module pilot Walter Cunningham will talk about how NASA’s “unproven and unsupported remarks” on global warming damage the agency’s reputation. The astronauts will be joined in the discussion by Harold Doiron, who worked for decades on vehicle stability and design at NASA, and Thomas Wysmuller, a meteorologist for the Royal Dutch Weather Bureau in Amsterdam and a long-time employee and consultant for NASA.
Two Apollo-era astronauts and two prominent former NASA scientists will speak at The Heartland Institute’s Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-7), taking place in Chicago on May 21-23. The four men were among 49 signatories to a March 28 letter to NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) urging the agencies to cease their “unbridled advocacy” of anthropogenic global warming. (Read the letter here.)
Dr. Harrison Schmitt, the first scientist and last man to walk on the moon in the Apollo 17 mission, and Apollo 7 lunar module pilot Walter Cunningham will talk about how NASA’s “unproven and unsupported remarks” on global warming damage the agency’s reputation.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/04/19/prweb9418654.DTL
EV: These people possess something that you and your kind will never have and that is logic, common sense and most important, integrity. I will submit a couple other post to close out my experiment of finding out just how irrational, delusional and dishonest the anthropogenic global warming crowd of clowns is. I must add, EV, that no matter how many different ways or from how many different sources you present a lie, it will always be that, a lie.
1. If you were/are insulted; so be it. You presented NO facts of anything to support your flawed position.
2. Anthropogenic climate change has been proven time and again to be a hoax for governments and certain organizations and individuals to gain CONTROL because if one controls the energy, who cares about anything else in a developed society?
“The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it” — H L Mencken
3. There have been no extremes in any weather event that have not occurred previously and were more sever; note this:
“Severe drought in 1934 covered 80% of the country, compared with 25% in 2011
In June, 1934 the entire country had triple digit heat. We didn’t come anywhere close to that this summer.”
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/062/mwr-062-06-0212.pdf
Today, the disaster is reported immediately, relayed around the world by satellites, and seen live in the living rooms of millions on television. It certainly looks as though things are getting worse, because we are seeing more of them.
It’s all a matter of perception. http://www.epicdisasters.com/index.php/site/comments/coldest_and_warmest_days_in_the_united_states/
The Worst US Winter Storms
http://www.epicdisasters.com/index.php/site/comments/the_worst_us_winter_storms/
Also note the high temperature extremes that I supplied you with that HAVE not been broken by your non warming climate.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html
Nor has there been an increase in Hurricanes in the US since your type predicted more sever occurrences after Katrina. These are FACTS and not some made up hyperbolic bit of BS.
4. How can a “FACT” be irrelevant?
5. Your “worlds preeminent scientific organizations regarding climate change ” are, for the most part, nothing better than harlots being paid to present the views that the governments want put forth( Example the UN’s IPCC) so that they can gain the control and revenue from phony “cap and tax” carbon taxes, that, even if CO2 was a problem, would do nothing to alleviate it.
6. I gave you examples of tens of thousands of REAL scientist that have not sold their souls to the devil for a few shekels:
“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” — Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.”
“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.
There are none of your “tens of thousands of scientist” that have ever won a Nobel Prize in their specialty while this skeptic did.
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
7.
8. I will answer your 7 & 8 in much more detail at a later date plus a pertinent question regarding your 2 months of travel.
I entreat EV to look at this site and video, especially since the CLOUD experiment that was done in the CERN particle accelerator proves Svenmark’s hypothesis and there has never been a test/experiment that has shown that CO2 contributes one damn thing to what the earth’s climate does, one way or the other. For the alarmist to make the types of claims that they do regarding CO2 with out ANY proof that it does what they claim is indeed fatuitous.
Svensmark, being a scientist, devised experiments of his own to test his theory and that demonstrates how science works. It is not about a group of self serving charlatans proclaiming that “the debate is over”.
“Svensmark: Evidence continues to build that the Sun drives climate, not CO2”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/svensmark-evidence-continues-to-build.html
The reply to EV’s drivel and his assertions in the 7TH & 8TH points that they mention will be presented when time permits.
When is the economy going to “decarbonizes”, as EV puts it? Does he and his kind think that more government subsidized Solar Trust Of America, Solyndra and Beacon Power boondoggles will get them to the “utopia” of their “renewable” green agenda? Maybe they believe that more non generating windmills will do the job for them.
I know that FACTS are something that the EVs of the “green” world do not want to deal in but I will present a few anyway and the first of these FACTS are regarding the petroleum industry. When the EV type folks in the US fill up their rides, besides spilling a large part of the fuel trying to get it into the ride because they are bitching so much about how much it is costing to spill/fill the tank, they have no idea that petroleum products account for far more than transportation fuel but it is also used in thousands of products that these good “green” fools use every day with out any thought as to where the base for these products comes from.
“A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items)
One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:”
http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm
Just, from this perspective, how does EV imagine that the economy will “decarbonizes”?
EV likes to imagine that it is the fossil fuel industries that are waging a huge battle against their wind power, solar power or whatever. They are so naive that they do not realize the divisions between petroleum and the coal industry because oil is used for industry and transportation; only .8%; and, that is largely petroleum coke, is used to generate electricity in the U.S. (#1) while coal produces 44.7% as of last March. The question for EV is why do they imagine that the energy companies have to fund anything regarding this issue when there is nothing at present that can replace their products?
The energy companies use their money to fund research and development into finding more oil and natural gas and other sources of energy. They have discovered the vast reserves in the Bakken field on private lands and have, because of directional drilling, revitalized a one hundred year old field in eastern MT and N. DK and have another oil boom going on there around Baker, MT. On the North Slope of the Brooks Range, where I have worked, they are able to drill up to 40 wells from a single drill pad and that decreases the foot print from drilling but the polar bears have further to go to come and walk around these drill sites and the caribou do not have as many pipe lines to lay under for shade in the summer, or to get on the mounds to try to get away from the mosquitoes. The amount of natural gas developed has increased dramatically due to new methods to extract it from newly found shale deposits deep under the earth’s surface.
The petroleum industry has developed the science to find oil a mile beneath the ocean surface and to drill into the deposits and produce the fuel for EV to eventually spill while filling his ride. I do not think that EV has ever heard about the Troll platform that the Norwegians built and use in one of the harshest ocean environments in the world, the North Sea. (#2)” With an overall height of 472m it is the tallest structure ever moved by mankind”.
This is another energy company development to get more oil from old fields so that EV can “be traveling most of the next two months”. (#3) “I’m talking about Chevron’s newly launched field of solar concentrating mirrors installed in an old oil field in Coalinga, Calif. These 7,600 mirrors track the sun, capture rays, then shine the concentrated light on what’s basically a water-filled box sitting on a pole.” also this is what I most like about this and that there is no crony capitalism involved because “And the best part: no U.S. taxpayer money on the line.”
I would think time and money spent on this nonsense of anthropogenic global warming could be better applied to other proven problems on earth. I have personally seen the total destruction of the rain forest of Malaysian Borneo (I understand that is even more pronounced in the Indonesian portion of this Island) to grow trees that produce palm oil that in turn can be refined into bio fuels, the total environment for any critters that rely on these forest is gone and now these unique animals, such as the orangutan, are on the road to extinction. Just another area where this green revolution destroys rather than saves but the EVs of the world can pat them selves on the back for “saving the planet”. A side note, as with ethanol, it takes more energy to produce this biodiesel than what is derived from the burning of it.
“We utilize energy from carbon, not because we are bad people, but because it is the affordable foundation on which the profound improvements in our standard of living have been achieved – our progress in health and welfare. I taught science in Kenya, Africa and witnessed first hand this simple rule – without energy life is brutal and short.” Dr. John Christy
Coal will be next for EV to consider, if they in fact consider anything beyond their narrow, ideologically crippled view point.
(#1) “Figure 2: Net Generation Shares by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors),
Year-to-Date through March, 2011”
(The pie chart shows this): “Coal, 44.7%; Natural Gas, 20.6%; Nuclear,20.5%; Hydroelectric Conventional, 8.4%; Other Energy Sources, 5.2% and Petroleum .8%”
http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
(#2) Gas and oil from the field is extracted via three platforms – Troll A, B and C.
http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/troll/
(#3 “The light heats the water into steam, which is then pumped through the oil field and deep down into the reservoir in order to loosen up and coax out heavy oil.
And the best part: no U.S. taxpayer money on the line.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/10/04/chevron-uses-solar-power-to-steam-oil-out-of-california-fiel
This reply regarding coal is in regard to this comment EV made to me: “They are unwilling to admit that the “denial machine” is driven by (a) the fossil fuel industry, which stands to lose huge profits when the economy “decarbonizes”
The coal plants remove 99% of the particulates and now we have EV telling us that CO2, an essential for life on earth trace gas, is a “pollutant”. It amazes me that EV didn’t bring up the excuse that the EPA is using to close coal fired power plants down and that is mercury:
“2012 EPA itself says the purported “hazards to public health” from mercury and non-mercury emissions from American EGUs are “anticipated to remain after imposition” of the new regulations.”
“EPA computer models claim mercury emission cuts will reduce average per person “avoided IQ loss” by an undetectable “0.00209 IQ points,” with estimated “total nationwide benefits” of $500,000 to $6.1 million by 2016. Job creation from the rules, it says, will be “not statistically different from zero.” (There is something that has caused an acute IQ loss in the EVs of the world but the EPA is not going to be able to remove it because it is genetic, I fear)
“The EPA also confessed that U.S. power plants actually contribute a mere 3 percent of the total mercury deposited in computer-modeled American watersheds and subsequently, in fish tissue. Citizens will justifiably wonder where the other 97 percent comes from, and why we should spend so much money for so little benefit.”
“Third, the agency’s estimates for mercury exposure risks are solely for “hypothetical female subsistence consumers” who daily eat almost a pound of fish that they catch in U.S. streams, rivers, and lakes over a 70-year lifetime (less than 1 percent of U.S. women). For the rest of American women, who eat mostly ocean fish purchased at a grocery on a far less frequent basis EPA’s rules are irrelevant.”
“Fourth, EPA admitted that only 22 to 29 percent of its computer-modeled watersheds are “at risk” from EGU mercury, even when it erroneously assumed that at least 5 percent of total mercury deposition into the watersheds came from U.S. power plants. If the modeling criteria were tweaked only slightly – to reflect actual average freshwater fish consumption rates for American women and require that at least 15 percent of total mercury deposition be attributable to EGUs – not one U.S. watershed would be at risk.”
“Finally, EPA ignores the presence of selenium in nearly all fish. Its strong attraction to mercury molecules protects fish and people against buildups of methylmercury, mercury’s biologically active and more toxic form.”
“Combining any series of small-probability scenarios results in a near-zero likelihood that the events will actually happen. If each of five scenarios has only a 20 percent chance of happening, the likelihood of all five happening is 0.032 percent.”
“As the preceding analysis suggests, the probability that all the EPA’s improbable scenarios will actually happen is virtually zero; the likelihood that its new regulations will benefit human health is also zero.”
“However, EPA still stubbornly “disagrees that [mercury] exposure levels in the U.S. are lower than those in the Faroe Islands.” Exposure to methylmercury in the United States is “the same” as in the North Atlantic’s Faroe Islands, EPA insists.” I well imagine that the EPA is trying to find someone to crucify over this mercury issue, as they have sought out ones to crucify over CO2 and crucify them they have.
I have been to China four times, if one counts a visit to Hong Kong many years ago. The last three visits began in 2006 and if EV is worried about the air in the United States they should try to see something in China because almost everywhere there the air is so bad that one can hardly see the ground from 30,000′ up in an airplane and eventually their air is our air; but, these phony treaties such as the Kyoto accord exempt China and India from any restrictions because they know what these two countries would tell them where to go with their restrictions.
“Chronic respiratory diseases – Most illness and death in this category is due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Major COPD risk factors include tobacco, childhood pneumonia, various occupational exposures, and air pollution from unventilated indoor cooking and heating. These risk factors are far more prevalent in developing countries.”
http://www.smartglobalhealth.org/issues/entry/chronic-diseases
(no mention of CO2 because CO2 is not a pollutant)
I have been to Nepal three times and have a very good friend that is a Gurkha and I have been to his village two times to spend a few days and their means of cooking is an earthen stove that burns wood (in the high mountains of the Sherpa’s area the fuel is Yak dung) and there is no stove pipe, the smoke just goes out into the room and maybe out the cracks between the roof and the wall. Many parts of the world do their food preparation in this manner. In my friends village, if you want running water that is what you do when you carry it up the long trail from the spring at the bottom of the valley. Electricity would be very welcome there.
EV seems to want to discount the benefits of having a reliable supply of electricity and he more than likely would sound like a scalded cat if their electricity is out for over ten minutes. When I was in Kathmandu the power was off more than it was on and they should have plenty of electricity because they have so much potential from hydro. Actually in some of the remote villages they do have hydro plants that give them a steady supply of power, unless a belt is broken as was the case in Manang and their power had been down for weeks waiting to get a new one from Italy. Last Sept. I was in Tanzania and the power was on and off, mostly off and the air was bad from cooking fire smoke.
While EV labors to find more and more reasons to shut down coal fired electrical plants with out coming up with alternatives, there are engineers that work for these companies that have and continue to develop more efficient and cleaner generating plants.
(b) “citizens who distrust science because it contradicts their other beliefs (those who deny evolution, etc.)” I find this comment to be irresponsible, offensive and it goes beyond being ignorant because ignorance is a condition that can be redeemed through education but this is a stupid thing to say and stupid is a condition that those afflicted with it must just learn to live with and the EVs of the world demonstrate that they do not do so well with the handicap. For this comment to come from some one who believes in basically nothing is not surprising. I did point out the cult that they are a tithing member of and that is the cult of anthropogenic global warming and I presented EV with the outline of the believes of this cult:
J.Doug Swallow says:
March 10, 2012 at 4:35 am
IS BELIEF IN AGW A CULT?
Our Global Warming cultists deny they are well, cultists.
Okay, let’s examine record:
They worship a pantheon of gods, starting with Mother Gaia. They even opened
their latest congregation at Canned Corn by offering a prayer to one of the
local Deities. Remember, these are the same people who claim to have science
on their side (H/T Andrew Bolt).
They have a Prophet in the form of Al Gore – the Goracle, who has many
mansions and travels the world in a big jet, spreading their Gospel – “Do as
I say, not as I do”…….. and so forth, but this expresses the believes of this cult.
This is what a high priest of EV’s cult had to say some time back:
“What if Mary is another name for Gaia? Then her capacity for
virgin birth is no miracle . . . it is a role of Gaia since life began . . .
She is of this Universe and, conceivably, a part of God. On Earth,
she is the source of life everlasting and is alive now;
she gave birth to humankind and we are part of her.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
Ages of Gaia
“He previously painted some of the direst visions of the effects of climate change. In 2006, in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, he wrote that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” (Is this where EV gets their distorted views from because they do not appear to be bright enough to formulate any views of their own?)
This old fool is able to understand his mistakes and admit to them while we have folks like EV that tenaciously hang on to their “believes” because that is what their cult has told them to believe.
“However, the professor admitted in a telephone interview with msnbc.com that he now thinks he had been “extrapolating too far.”
The new book, due to be published next year, will be the third in a trilogy, following his earlier works, “Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back – and How We Can Still Save Humanity,” and “The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy It While You Can.”
The new book will discuss how humanity can change the way it acts in order to help regulate the Earth’s natural systems, performing a role similar to the harmonious one played by plants when they absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen.
Climate’s ‘usual tricks’
It will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected. (NOICE THIS, EV)
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added. (He has more honor than EV because he does not lie about this FACT)
He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.
In 2007, Time magazine named Lovelock as one of 13 leaders and visionaries in an article on “Heroes of the Environment,” which also included Gore, Mikhail Gorbachev and Robert Redford.
“Jim Lovelock has no university, no research institute, no students. His almost unparalleled influence in environmental science is based instead on a particular way of seeing things,” Oliver Morton, of the journal Nature wrote in Time. “Humble, stubborn, charming, visionary, proud and generous, his ideas about Gaia have started a change in the conception of biology that may serve as a vital complement to the revolution that brought us the structures of DNA and proteins and the genetic code.”
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
The above quote from what Oliver Morton said makes one to not believe anything that is in the journal “Nature” because of this type of bias.
EV: Every time you fill up your ride now you are sacrificing to your cult and I hope it gives you a feeling of “doing the right thing” & incidentally, what others believe of a spiritual nature is none of your damn business, If I believe in the Big Bang and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old does not mean that I can’t have questions and solutions other than what your agw cult might provide and that is nothing, zero as far as answering those questions.
I like the “Guest Lecturer” euphanism.
Why don’t you come right out and admit it was none other than Fred Singer.
Nuff said.
And as for the 16 “respected” scientists. Do me a favour. 14 engineers five of whom have links to Exxon.
How gullible can you get.
No wonder the Wall Street Journal was roundly condemned by just about everyone in the field for irresponsibly publishing the same tired old list of long-debunked myths and nonsense.
how can we finish global warming
Why do some people prefer to yell than to think? Don’t you people have brains? Use them!
Leslie, you are the blinded one.
First i think that this is about knowing.
We know that there is global warming and that it has been done by human hand.
Are you really going to tell me that there is nothing going on and that people should not worry.
That is just a hole lot of crap to begin with.
I think that you are the ones hoe should get your story’s strait.
Gabs in the ozone layer, oceans and rivers and canals damaged by oil or other chemical crap.
The melt down, the warming up from within, animals that are endangered and the list go’s on and on, ( ALL DONE BY HUMAN HAND )
And then you people come up and just say that there is no problem at all.
Understand this, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see what is going on.
You can see it, and also the fact that children at this moment are very worried about the future.
And people have all reason to worry, everything is going down hill.
But you know what, you people just keep on dreaming and believe in this fairytale that there is nothing to be worried about when it comes to global warming.