Climate Change

[upriver]

Global Warming Vs. Nuclear Proliferation?
* Oliver Manuel, the iron sun theorist who used to work for NASA, has a new document in which he suggests that global warming was chosen as a potential enemy that the world could unite against, instead of nations threatening each other with nuclear weapons.

We are still threatening each other with weapons. We have 5 wars going for no other reason than control of that country. My personal feeling is that nuclear weapons are out dated. There are hints of weapons much more destructive.

Global warming is a tool used to push Agenda 21 and ICLEI sustainability. Sustainability in this case is code for one world government. I am dealing with the ICLEI document for the town of Grass Valley where I live. It has to do with control of the food, water, power supply. They want to put meters on our water wells... ETC.
Carbon tax(which does not bring people together) is the biggest scam since Enron and was created by the same woman that invented Enron energy trading.

These people are not your friends....

For the privilege of the UN/ICLEI telling us that we have to reduce our carbon emission by 80% by 2015 we pay several million dollars. I'm trying to get the city administrator to withdraw.

Brant

[Lloyd]

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
Forbes By James Taylor - Wed, Jul 27, 2011
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html

- NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
- Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
- "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

* See link for more.

[Julian Braggins]

I just posted this on the " Antarctica" thread and think that anyone worried about global warming should read the PDF Book noted in it ,

"Climate and extreme weather events certainly had a large part in the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.
The northern European tribes had little option other than move south as weather deteriorated in several periods during the Dark Ages. Reading about these in "A Chronological listing of Early Weather Events" by James A. Marusek impact@hughes.net was a real eye opener ( free PDF 580 pages, )

All the great rivers froze many times, the Bosporus was choked with ice bergs 3 stories high more than once, when the Black Sea froze, even the Nile froze. Causes are not listed as they were unknown (much as climate to-day )

Reading that, I realise that we have been living in one of the most benign climates of the last thousand years, and that worrying about a fraction of a degree change in a century is laughable!"

[Julian Braggins]

http://www.breadandbutterscience.com is the correct link to the PDF mentioned above

[Julian Braggins]

I came upon this note I made about the posting by "AlanG" in Wattsupwiththat.com 2009/05/08 "More Maunder than Dalton thread".The conclusion would seem to mean that almost ALL of the warming over the last century could be attributed to the Sun.

Would anyone who has a lot more physics than I have check the logic and math of this and see if there is a flaw?

"Temperature of Earth = 287K
" Universe = 2.7K

Total Solar Insolation variance of .2% gives temperature change of (287-2.7) times 0.002 = 0.5686 K " --close to the 0.6C agreed rise

Although one prominent Solar scientist says the temperature change is 0.14K for .2% TSI variation,
as he calculates from -18 C, the assumed temperature without an atmosphere.

About that -18C assumption, NASA recently disclosed that the Moon, without an atmosphere, has a temperature at dawn that is 40K above the calculated, because the ground absorbs heat to half a meter depth and the incomplete release of that causes the difference. Wouldn't that be the same with Earth, and negate the assumed -18C ?

[KuhnKat]

Junglelord'

"That is an outright lie. If you look at natural diversity, and natural ecology, we have made an incredible impact on the way nature is allowed to flourish or die...we tend to kill, spray, posion, manicure, segregate, annililate, as much of nature as we can"

Except the earth has increased its living biosphere substantially in the last 30 years. Some, like me, blame the increased CO2 availability for increasing growth under good and bad conditions. More CO2 in the atmosphere allows plant stomata to be smaller retaining more moisture, decreasing evapotranspiration, and allowing it to survive at reasonable levels in hotter and drier conditions. The extra CO2 also apparently helps the biota in the soil and roots to recycle and replace the nitrogen and other important compounds to support increased growth of the plants!!!!

While in general there is some truth to what you say above, it is also an exageration smearing all humanity for what is done by a small percentage. For instance, the US now has about as many trees growing as we had in the late 1700's. While we keep hearing about the devastation of the rain forests, in many areas the slash and burn farm techniques allow the land to go back to jungle after a few years. In others they are going to controlled, more sustainable uses

I always have to chuckle when I hear about the thousands of animal types that are alledgedly going extinct every year and projected to go extinct in the future. If you actually track down the paper that alledgedly supports these wild claims you find that it is a MODEL based on quite insufficient data. The next time someone throws that claim in your face just ask them where we can find the list of all the animal and plants that have gone extinct. There may be hundreds on the list, mostly from the past, BUT, there are also embarrasing issues like the animals that are regularly found in the wild they THOUGHT were extinct!!! Nope, pure alarmism.

You sound like you are a back to nature type with your complaints of manicured areas. You do realize that Yosemite Park here in California was called the valley of the smokes by the indians. It was a totally natural area and typically had a number of areas smouldering year around. This is actually fairly healthy as it consumes undergrowth that chokes the forest and changes it to carbon in the soil that provides minerals and holds water.Of course, we put out most fires so they don't cause too much damage now a days and end up promoting the growth of choking underbrush. I am sure you have probably seen news reports where we have had devastating fires that burn so hot that it actually sterilizes the top inch or so of the soil not to mention completely killing large numbers of trees?? What is also natural is for animals to increase their numbers during periods when the climate is optimal or good for their forage. This increase typically will see an increase in the predators also. Of course there is eventually a drought, extra cold winter, or other climate issue that reduces the food supply and we see the numbers of animals starving. When they starve the predators starve also. Boom and bust just like the Fed creates for us!!! But all natural!!

So basically, we ARE a part of the ecosystem. We do have intelligence. Should we use that intelligence to "manicure" our planet for the most efficient overall system, rape it, ignore it, commit suicide...????

[davesmith_au]

Just so you know KunhCat, user Junglelord is deceased. I'll make a change to the software to reflect this, as you are not the first person to have addressed him like he is still with us.

Cheers, Dave.

[Lloyd]

NASA Moves to Winning Side of AGW Debate!
The Sun is the model for other stars in the cosmos, so it is important that NASA recorded and promised to release videos of changes in the Sun, from its quietest period in years to the activity marking the beginning of solar cycle 24 !
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/ ... 6026.html/

Implications of this NASA decision for the debate over global climate change:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/finall ... -timeline/

Are discussed on Professor Curry's climate blog:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/02/updat ... ell-paper/
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/03/happy ... niversary/
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/05/weath ... the-1950s/

Oliver K. Manuel

[neilwilkes]

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscor ... 42304.html

"There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces."


3 cheers.

Where's the quotation from, please? Tried to follow the link but got a 404 "page not found" error

[Lloyd]

* Snopes says John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, made that statement in 2008. See http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/coleman.asp.

[GaryN]

Another possible mechanism affecting the climate:
Ultraviolet light shone on cold winter conundrum

Recent cold winters that brought chaos to the UK and other places in northern Europe may have their roots in the Sun's varying ultraviolet emissions.
The latest satellite data shows the UV output is far more changeable than scientists had previously thought.
A UK scientific team now shows in Nature Geoscience journal how these changes lead to warmer winters in some places and colder winters in others.
The researchers emphasise there is no impact on global warming.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15199065

[+EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know]

To SPICE up our lives!

On page 15 of my newspaper today the press announced that the combined brainpower of Bristol, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Oxford have come up with a way to end the "Gobal warming threat with an ambitious Project called Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering or SPICE"
The plan entails dumping millions of tonnes of Sulfur dioxide particles into the upper atmosphere...
first by fleets of blimp,
then later if need be by huge pipelines.
They want to simulate the effects of a volcano to reduce the incoming sunlight & thereby lowering the average temp.

I didn't go to any of those places, but let me get this straight:
On one hand they're saying the trouble IS due to the direct influence from the sun...
Then on the other, they're claiming we DON'T already know that the SO2 will re-combine in the upper atmosphere with H2O & O, then return as H2SO4???
How the helk do ya get to teach at places like Oxford or Cambridge and yet still NOT know at least some high-school chemistry?????
Isn't reducing the sunlight that reaches the ground & creating the conditions for sulphuric acid rain just as detrimental to all life on earth as this idea of GW?

Talk about a dramatic effect on animals, plants and the ground pH
Oh, and of course us.

[601L1n9FR09]

I pretty much have myself penciled in as a useless eater as I am sure the gang of Bristol, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Oxford have. We can safely breath in all we want as long as we do not breath out carbon dioxide. I think it was recently declared a pollutant. I wonder how much carbon dioxide our rotting corpses will re-introduce to the biosphere. Gotta run, dinner time!

JD

[phyllotaxis]

Contained within this LINK is one of the finest speeches delivered on climate I've seen-

Delivered October 31st 2011 by Matt Ridley-- it will blow you away

An excerpt

.... Using these six lessons, I am now going to plunge into an issue on which almost all the experts are not only confident they can predict the future, but absolutely certain their opponents are pseudoscientists. It is an issue on which I am now a heretic. I think the establishment view is infested with pseudoscience. The issue is climate change.

Now before you all rush for the exits, and I know it is traditional to walk out on speakers who do not toe the line on climate at the RSA – I saw it happen to Bjorn Lomborg last year when he gave the Prince Philip lecture – let me be quite clear. I am not a “denier”. I fully accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, the climate has been warming and that man is very likely to be at least partly responsible. When a study was published recently saying that 98% of scientists “believe” in global warming, I looked at the questions they had been asked and realized I was in the 98%, too, by that definition, though I never use the word “believe” about myself. Likewise the recent study from Berkeley, which concluded that the land surface of the continents has indeed been warming at about the rate people thought, changed nothing.

So what’s the problem? The problem is that you can accept all the basic tenets of greenhouse physics and still conclude that the threat of a dangerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible, while the threat of real harm from climate-mitigation policies is already so high as to be worrying, that the cure is proving far worse than the disease is ever likely to be. Or as I put it once, we may be putting a tourniquet round our necks to stop a nosebleed.

I also think the climate debate is a massive distraction from much more urgent environmental problems like invasive species and overfishing.

I was not always such a “lukewarmer”. In the mid 2000s one image in particular played a big role in making me abandon my doubts about dangerous man-made climate change: the hockey stick*. It clearly showed that something unprecedented was happening. I can remember where I first saw it at a conference and how I thought: aha, now there at last is some really clear data showing that today’s temperatures are unprecedented in both magnitude and rate of change – and it has been published in Nature magazine.

Yet it has been utterly debunked by the work of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. I urge you to read Andrew Montford’s careful and highly readable book The Hockey Stick Illusion*. Here is not the place to go into detail, but briefly the problem is both mathematical and empirical. The graph relies heavily on some flawed data – strip-bark tree rings from bristlecone pines — and on a particular method of principal component analysis, called short centering, that heavily weights any hockey-stick shaped sample at the expense of any other sample. When I say heavily – I mean 390 times.

This had a big impact on me. This was the moment somebody told me they had made the crop circle the night before.

For, apart from the hockey stick, there is no evidence that climate is changing dangerously or faster than in the past, when it changed naturally.

There is plenty more before and after this section.

You owe it to yourself to read this...
The LINK

[MrAmsterdam]

Climategate 2.0

And for the second time this CO2 discussion exploded into corruption, unethical behavior and pseudoscience...but not according to the -washington post- as can be read in this conclusion;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/cap ... _blog.html

I could not agree more with Emanuel when he says the the contents of the Climategate emails are not the real scandal, but that it’s instead the effort to discredit climate change science.

The true scandal is ... to dismiss an entire scientific endeavor based on the privately expressed sentiments of a few (a very few) researchers working in an environment of ongoing harassment.

There are surely meaningful topics to debate in climate science. Competent people can disagree about how big of a problem global warming is. But the scientific community has largely moved beyond the scientific issues brought to light in the Climategate 1.0 emails and more emails on the same issues only serve as an unneeded distraction.

Official statement of the University of East Anglia about newly released batch of emails...

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/pre ... s/CRUnov11

Tue, 22 Nov 2011

While we have had only a limited opportunity to look at this latest post of 5,000 emails, we have no evidence of a recent breach of our systems.

If genuine, (the sheer volume of material makes it impossible to confirm at present that they are all genuine) these emails have the appearance of having been held back after the theft of data and emails in 2009 to be released at a time designed to cause maximum disruption to the imminent international climate talks.

This appears to be a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy over the science behind climate change when that science has been vindicated by three separate independent inquiries and number of studies – including, most recently, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group.

As in 2009, extracts from emails have been taken completely out of context. Following the previous release of emails scientists highlighted by the controversy have been vindicated by independent review, and claims that their science cannot or should not be trusted are entirely unsupported. They, the University and the wider research community have stood by the science throughout, and continue to do so.

A few quotes from the second release of emails, hold on to your trousers, it can be a bit upsetting...

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/1 ... egate-2-0/

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

-
-

/// The IPCC Process ///

<1939> Thorne/MetO:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]

<3066> Thorne:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

<2884> Wigley:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]

<4755> Overpeck:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.

<3456> Overpeck:

I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?

<1104> Wanner/NCCR:

In my [IPCC-TAR] review [...] I critcized [...] the Mann hockey[s]tick [...]
My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times. Now the
internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these
early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in
Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to
SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.

<0414> Coe:

Hence the AR4 Section 2.7.1.1.2 dismissal of the ACRIM composite to be
instrumental rather than solar in origin is a bit controversial. Similarly IPCC
in their discussion on solar RF since the Maunder Minimum are very dependent on
the paper by Wang et al (which I have been unable to access) in the decision to
reduce the solar RF significantly despite the many papers to the contrary in
the ISSI workshop. All this leaves the IPCC almost entirely dependent on CO2
for the explanation of current global temperatures as in Fig 2.23. since
methane CFCs and aerosols are not increasing.

<2009> Briffa:

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of
all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!

<1219> Trenberth:

[...] opposing some things said by people like Chris Landsea who has said all the
stuff going on is natural variability. In addition to the 4 hurricanes hitting
Florida, there has been a record number hit Japan 10?? and I saw a report
saying Japanese scientists had linked this to global warming. [...] I am leaning
toward the idea of getting a box on changes in hurricanes, perhaps written by a
Japanese.

<3205> Jones:

Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)

<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:

I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.

<0813> Fox/Environment Agency:

if we loose the chance to make climate change a reality to people in the
regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.

<4716> Adams:

Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.

<1790> Lorenzoni:

I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and
governmental opinion [...] ‘climate change’ needs to be present in people’s
daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and
evolving phenomenon

<3062> Jones:

We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written
[...] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff.

<1485> Mann:

the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what
the site [Real Climate] is about.

<2428> Ashton/co2.org:

Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn
this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions – bad politics – to
one about the value of a stable climate – much better politics. [...] the most
valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as
possible

<2967> Briffa:

Also there is much published evidence for Europe (and France in particular) of
increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may
be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both. Contrast this
with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest
decline? To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even
real?

<2733> Crowley:

Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in
the open.

<2095> Steig:

He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he
thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the
supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.

<0044> Rean:

[...] we found the [urban warming] effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed.
This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990.
[...] We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately,
when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.

<4789> Wigley:

there are some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets –
we don’t want one of those [EPRI/California Energy Commission meeting].

Jones:

The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at
all Californian sites.

<0999> Hulme:

My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a
job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of
God’s planet into research and action.

<3653> Hulme:

He [another Met scientist] is a Christian and would talk authoritatively about
the state of climate science from the sort of standpoint you are wanting.

/// Climate Models ///

<3111> Watson/UEA:

I’d agree probably 10 years away to go from weather forecasting to ~ annual
scale. But the “big climate picture” includes ocean feedbacks on all time
scales, carbon and other elemental cycles, etc. and it has to be several
decades before that is sorted out I would think. So I would guess that it will
not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the
question of how the climate will change in many decades time.

<5131> Shukla/IGES:

["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be
willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the
projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.

<2423> Lanzante/NOAA:

While perhaps one could designate some subset of models as being poorer in a
lot of areas, there probably never will be a single universally superior model
or set of models. We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so
that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the
breath of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area of focus.

<1982> Santer:

there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor
tests we’ve applied.

<0850> Barnett:

[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the
modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer

<5066> Hegerl:

[IPCC AR5 models]
So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long
suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing
correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.

<4443> Jones:

Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low
level clouds.

<4085> Jones:

GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be
correct.

I think they are after your tax money...and scientific effort died in the process...