Climate Change

[seasmith]

Lower Antarctic Ice-loss now proposed

After applying the model to 99 months (from August 2002 to December 2010) of GRACE data, we estimate a continent-wide ice-mass change of −69 ± 18 Gt yr−1 (+0.19 ± 0.05 mm yr−1 sea-level equivalent). This is about a third to a half of the most recently published GRACE estimates2, 5, which cover a similar time period but are based on older GIA models. Plausible GIA model uncertainties, and errors relating to removing longitudinal GRACE artefacts (‘destriping’), confine our estimate to the range −126 Gt yr−1 to −29 Gt yr−1 (0.08–0.35 mm yr−1 sea-level equivalent). We resolve 26 independent drainage basins and find that Antarctic mass loss, and its acceleration, is concentrated in basins along the Amundsen Sea coast. Outside this region, we find that West Antarctica is nearly in balance and that East Antarctica is gaining substantial mass.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/va ... E-20121025

[PersianPaladin]

A personal irritation of mine is the constant claims by people that Climate Change is some conspiracy manufactured by the governments and bankers. I've found out that such claims do the cause of skeptics much harm. Instead, it would be better to approach the science in the same way that we approach mainstream cosmology - i.e. as hypotheses masquerading as theories, quantitative data based on shaky qualitative grounds, unfalsifiable claims, etc.

For the people still claiming the whole thing is a conspiracy, please read the following.

"If climate change science was fake, as the skeptics argue, then we'd have our global carbon tax by now. Republicans and Democrats alike would be saying climate change is real and we need a carbon tax to solve this crisis. Look at every single example of the government playing politics with climate change in this historical archive for the last 10 years:

Instead of censoring, altering or downplaying climate science, they would have been promoting it. Obama, the greatest tool of the NWO elite, would have been pushing for the carbon tax. So would Romney (since they're both puppets of this plot). They both would have used the nationally televised debates to bring their case for a carbon scheme to the public. The same goes for George W. Bush (unless climate deniers want to re-write Bush as the great hero of this story, fighting climate science at every turn to beat back the New World Order scum at their own game).

I think by all logically consistent accounts, we would have this global carbon tax already folks. At the very least we'd certainly have it here in America... IF... climate change was a big hoax perpetuated by the government and all the world's major scientific organizations for the ultimate purpose of world control. So um... cognitive dissonance anyone? :/"¨

http://www.filmsforaction.org/news/a_ti ... ge_denial/

[PersianPaladin]

I'm also unhappy with some people claiming that they have "disproven" anthropogenic climate change based on their laboratory experiments with CO2 and other gases in a greenhouse. Well, the last person who performed that experiment got exposed as using dishonest methods. Read the comments section, as he gets challenged on his understandings of physics:-
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/ ... not-exist/

Importantly, we are yet to be able to reproduce a mini-Earth (and its atmosphere) to do this AGW experiment on. So much of it will remain a hypothesis until the evidence the scientists present is compelling enough for us to seriously consider action. Regardless, even if AGW was false; there is good reason to change our energy sources to less dirty fuels. Energy shortages and political risk - being the reason. We don't need oil, coal or natural gas. I published an article not long back that shows that we already have the technology to replace oil and gas via the combination of de-centralised micro-generation and laser-directed electricity from the ionosphere.

[seasmith]

~
More data, less opinion, would be my preference in this area of study...

[Lloyd]

PP: I published an article not long back that shows that we already have the technology to replace oil and gas via the combination of de-centralised micro-generation and laser-directed electricity from the ionosphere.

* What's the link for it?

[PersianPaladin]

PP: I published an article not long back that shows that we already have the technology to replace oil and gas via the combination of de-centralised micro-generation and laser-directed electricity from the ionosphere.

* What's the link for it?

Google "New technologies could alleviate global power shortages".

[seasmith]

"
Little change in global drought over the past 60 years
"

Drought is expected to increase in frequency and severity in the future as a result of climate change, mainly as a consequence of decreases in regional precipitation but also because of increasing evaporation driven by global warming1, 2, 3. Previous assessments of historic changes in drought over the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries indicate that this may already be happening globally. In particular, calculations of the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) show a decrease in moisture globally since the 1970s with a commensurate increase in the area in drought that is attributed, in part, to global warming4, 5. The simplicity of the PDSI, which is calculated from a simple water-balance model forced by monthly precipitation and temperature data, makes it an attractive tool in large-scale drought assessments, but may give biased results in the context of climate change6. Here we show that the previously reported increase in global drought is overestimated because the PDSI uses a simplified model of potential evaporation7 that responds only to changes in temperature and thus responds incorrectly to global warming in recent decades. More realistic calculations, based on the underlying physical principles8 that take into account changes in available energy, humidity and wind speed, suggest that there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years. The results have implications for how we interpret the impact of global warming on the hydrological cycle and its extremes, and may help to explain why palaeoclimate drought reconstructions based on tree-ring data diverge from the PDSI-based drought record in recent years9, 10.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... E-20121115

[Goldminer]

A personal irritation of mine is the constant claims by people that Climate Change is some conspiracy manufactured by the governments and bankers. I've found out that such claims do the cause of skeptics much harm. Instead, it would be better to approach the science in the same way that we approach mainstream cosmology - i.e. as hypotheses masquerading as theories, quantitative data based on shaky qualitative grounds, unfalsifiable claims, etc.

A personal irritation of mine is the constant claims by people who fail to make the distinction between natural climate change, and the silly arguments that carbon dioxide emitted by mankind's actions is detrimental to the Earth's ecosystems. The Earth, or "Mother Nature" have fantastic feedback channels that effectively keep Earth habitable. Carbon dioxide is beneficial to the Plant Kingdom which is effectively starved for it. The smog produced concomitant with the emissions is detrimental. Global heating caused by carbon dioxide is a farce. So is the idea that refrigerants cause global heating/reduced ozone (The new "green" refrigerant is the exact same atoms used in the old freon, slightly rearranged.)

Where do you think the "carbon tax" goes? (hint: it "helps" pay the phoney interest charged by the bankes on their proprietary "money.")

I agree with you that there is no need for the existing energy system, (promoted by the same bankers.) So yeah, let's go with alternative energy development i.e. "cold fusion" and get away from "energy distribution" systems.

[seasmith]

~
Notice in first press conf. since the electrocution that BHO was asked specifically about renewed plans for Carbon Tax, and twice evaded the question ?
On the planned global scale, it would be the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. Of course it would all be used for the good of mankind ....

[Sparky]

Notice in first press conf. since the electrocution that ---

Are you suggesting that we need mittphyscho and retardryan, or even ignorantpalin!?

I don't know if the Earth is warming or not, and I am pretty sure those shytheads above wouldn't make intelligent decisions concerning global warming! Things may not be perfect, but they could be worse!
If people would stop putting so many retard, obstructionist shytheads in congress, maybe we could move on, revamping the country's economy.!
And find some way to scientifically evaluate global warming.

[seasmith]

I

And find some way to scientifically evaluate global warming.

I don't give a wit about politics, or religion. It's all pap for the masses.
My post was just to bring attention to the monetary incentives currently swaying the direction of climate research.
As always, "follow the money" .

$

[GaryN]

@Goldminer

I agree with you that there is no need for the existing energy system, (promoted by the same bankers.) So yeah, let's go with alternative energy development i.e. "cold fusion" and get away from "energy distribution" systems.

In looking more into the nuclear radiation scare, it is just amazing how little evidence there is for any damage from anything other than the 'flash' from an 'explosion'. Nuclear energy could safely provide for a de-centralised energy grid, with reactors in every community. Nuclear 'waste' can be stored easily and cheaply and safely in an ordinary building, and the 'spent' fuel can actually be reused in a number of ways. The Travelling Wave reactor is one such device.
Travelling wave Reactor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor
TerraPower:
http://www.terrapower.com/home.aspx
There are other small reactors too, and no doubt the military has some information that would allow us all to have chest freezer sized units at home, but we'll never have access to that info. Nearly all large Naval vessels are now nuclear powered, even submarines, the Russians are building a nuclear powered train. 3 of the Chernobyl reactors kept running after the one that exploded (hydrogen explosion, like Fukushima) and the workers turned up every day, no ill effects reported. France has so much electricity they shut down some of their reactors on the weekend, no problems since the 60's. The nuclear scare is the work of the oil companies and bankers, and as usual, we are all suckered again.
Here is an audio interview with Ben Williams, a friend of Galen Winsor, on blogtalkradio, 60 minutes.(talking starts at 3:10). Well worth a listen, IMO.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/belovenow/ ... power-scam

[GaryN]

Fmr. Thatcher advisor Lord Monckton evicted from UN climate summit after challenging global warming

Monckton to UN: 'In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming'

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/18726/Fmr ... redentials

Are global warming questioners also on the Terrorism watch list too now I wonder? A no-fly list? If not, it won't be long.

[jarro_2783]

Are global warming questioners also on the Terrorism watch list too now I wonder? A no-fly list? If not, it won't be long.

No, because the CIA shut down their global warming unit, so they know that there is nothing to worry about, so those who question it need to be worried about either.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/ ... ming-unit/

[PersianPaladin]

To sum up,

The leaked IPCC report states that there may be some connection between GCRs and some aspects of the climate system.

However, the report is also consistent with the body of scientific literature in stating that research indicates GCRs are not effective at seeding clouds and have very little influence on global temperatures.

Solar activity has been nearly flat and slightly decreasing in recent decades, meaning that if GCRs do amplify solar influences on climate, they are amplifying a cooling effect.

The body of peer-reviewed scientific literature is very clear: human greenhouse gas emissions, not solar activity or galactic cosmic rays, are causing global warming. The leaked IPCC report is entirely consistent with this conclusion. In fact, in attempting to argue to the contrary, Rawls has scored an own goal by showing that if anything, GCRs are currently amplifying a solar cooling effect.

http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/en ... pcc-report

Thus far, I am yet to find most of the skeptic arguments to have much of an ability to withstand scrutiny from the mainstream. However, I maintain that while human influence (such as changes in land-usage and CO2) has influenced the climate and increased temperatures by less than 1C in the past 100 years; I have STRONG RESERVATIONS about the "positive feedback" models that climate scientists use in order to predict dire climatic scenarios by the end of this century. The jury is out about the accuracy of their computer models. The computer models attempt to instruct nature to conform to their "positive feedback" scenarios which show +6 or +8 or worse global average temperature increases by the end of the century.

Skeptics must also understand this point that is made in The Guardian article:-

Rawls has argued to the contrary by claiming that the climate is still responding to the increase in solar activity from the early 20th century, and that GCRs are amplifying that solar warming from over 60 years ago. This argument is simply physically wrong. As Figure 2 illustrates, when solar activity rises, temperatures follow suit very soon thereafter. In fact, during the mid-20th century, solar activity and global surface temperatures both flattened out. Are we to believe that the planet suddenly began responding to the pre-1950 solar activity increase in 1975—2012, after not warming 1940—1975? The argument makes no physical sense.

This is my current understanding of the picture. I maintain that most skeptics are unable to form strong arguments that withstand scrutiny. I await better arguments with regard to other mechanisms behind the heating trend.