Climate Change

[MrAmsterdam]

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... are-wrong/

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong
-
.

..
The idea that skeptical climate scientists are being treated like Soviet geneticists in the Stalinist period has no basis in fact. There are no political or scientific dictators in the US. No climate scientist has been expelled from the US National Academy of Sciences. No skeptics have been arrested or banished to gulags or the modern equivalents of Siberia. Indeed, the dissenting authors are at the world’s greatest universities, including Princeton, MIT, Rockefeller, the University of Cambridge, and the University of Paris.

I can speak personally for the lively debate about climate change policy. There are controversies about many details of climate science and economics. While some claim that skeptics cannot get their papers published, working papers and the Internet are open to all. I believe the opposite of what the sixteen claim to be true: dissident voices and new theories are encouraged because they are critical to sharpening our analysis. The idea that climate science and economics are being suppressed by a modern Lysenkoism is pure fiction.
-
-
-
The skeptics’ account also misunderstands the incentives in academic research. IPCC authors are not paid. Scientists who serve on panels of the National Academy of Science do so without monetary compensation for their time and are subject to close scrutiny for conflicts of interest. Academic advancement occurs primarily from publication of original research and contributions to the advancement of knowledge, not from supporting “popular” views. Indeed, academics have often been subject to harsh political attacks when their views clashed with current political or religious teachings. This is the case in economics today, where Keynesian economists are attacked for their advocacy of “fiscal stimulus” to promote recovery from a deep recession; and in biology, where evolutionary biologists are attacked as atheists because they are steadfast in their findings that the earth is billions rather than thousands of years old.

In fact, the argument about the venality of the academy is largely a diversion. The big money in climate change involves firms, industries, and individuals who worry that their economic interests will be harmed by policies to slow climate change. The attacks on the science of global warming are reminiscent of the well-documented resistance by cigarette companies to scientific findings on the dangers of smoking. Beginning in 1953, the largest tobacco companies launched a public relations campaign to convince the public and the government that there was no sound scientific basis for the claim that cigarette smoking was dangerous. The most devious part of the campaign was the underwriting of researchers who would support the industry’s claim. The approach was aptly described by one tobacco company executive: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”9

One of the worrisome features of the distortion of climate science is that the stakes are huge here—even larger than the economic stakes for keeping the cigarette industry alive. Tobacco sales in the United States today are under $100 billion. By contrast, expenditures on all energy goods and services are close to $1,000 billion. Restrictions on CO2 emissions large enough to bend downward the temperature curve from its current trajectory to a maximum of 2 or 3 degrees Centigrade would have large economic effects on many businesses. Scientists, citizens, and our leaders will need to be extremely vigilant to prevent pollution of the scientific process by the merchants of doubt.
-
-

etc etc

William D. Nordhaus is Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale. I wonder if he predicted the economic collapse in 2008.

In pure statistical terms, could the professor explain how co2 (0.03 pro cent of the atmosphere) has the strongest correlation with temperature change if one looks at rest of the substance in the atmosphere (watergas, nitrogen and oxygene) , given that this substance is being radiated each and every day in the upper layers of the atmosphere?

Are all the other correlations being ignored?

[Julian Braggins]

An experiment that shows that concentrated GHgs do not increase in temperature above ambient air when exposed to sunlight or artificial high IR light was performed by:

Berthold Klein P.E. jan 15 2012, "The Experiment that Failed which can save the World Trillions: Proving the "greenhouse gas effect"does not exist!

It also showed that there was no back radiation from these concentrated GHgs

The question is, why was such a seemingly simple experiment not conducted long ago by some enterprising "climate scientist student"?
http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/imag ... D-KLEIN.pd

[Lloyd]

* Your link didn't work for me, so here's another one: http://slayingtheskydragon.com/images/P ... -KLEIN.pdf.
* I wish the paper were better written; it's hard to understand as is.

[MrAmsterdam]

New theory: CO2 makes you fat

http://sciencenordic.com/new-theory-co2-makes-you-fat

Obesity may follow CO2 concentration

Hersoug has since studied events and research results that could support his theory.

1. He says the development in obesity in the US was fastest in the period 1986-2010 on the east coast – where CO2 concentrations are highest.

2. A study from 2010, covering 20,000 animals in various laboratories, showed that all the animals put on weight, even though they were given food under controlled conditions and should therefore not have put on weight. The animals studied included dogs, cats, mice and monkeys. And when researchers studied rats in both urban and rural environments in the US, the result was the same.

“The probability that all animals of eight different species put on weight from random causes is one in 10,000,000,” says Hersoug. “This indicates that the animals were affected by environmental factors – and you can speculate on what these environmental factors are.”

3. A quite decisive element was added to the researchers’ theory in 2007, when a study revealed that the pH value of blood – its acidity – affects nerve cells in the brain that regulate our appetite and metabolism: orexins.

CO2 makes us eat more

This discovery made it possible to develop a precise hypothesis for how CO2 makes us fatter: We breathe more CO2, which makes our blood more acidic; this affects our brain, so we want to eat more.

[Lloyd]

Absurd Theory
* Regarding "New theory: CO2 makes you fat", that theory sounds very absurd, because CO2 hasn't increased that much in those years, 1986 to 2010. It went supposedly from 345 to 390 parts per million, a difference of about 45 parts per million. It's extremely unlikely that any animal or humans could be that sensitive to such tiny changes in CO2 levels. What's far more likely is that the carbohydrates fed to animals has increased just as they have in human food since the 80s. Conventional medicine, based on lousy science, bought into the false propaganda that fat causes obesity, when it was known for decades prior to the 80s that carbs cause obesity. Natural fats tend to be used for energy needs. Excess carbs get stored as fat, or are converted to fructose, which increases fat storage and uric acid levels, which harm the liver etc.
* Carbs are cheaper than natural fats, so feed producers, as well as food producers, like to use as much carbs as possible to lower their own costs and increase profits.

[MrAmsterdam]

So basically they are saying CO2 is a poisonous 0.03 pro cent of trace gas that makes us fat.

A proposed potential role for increasing atmospheric CO2 as a promoter of weight gain and obesity
L-G Hersoug, A Sjödin and A Astrup

http://www.nature.com/nutd/journal/v2/n ... 0122a.html

Control of hypothalamic orexin neurons by acid and CO2
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/25/10685

Canaries in the coal mine: a cross-species analysis of the plurality of obesity epidemics
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 0.abstract

Let's all forget about Monsanto suicide seed that destroys all natural (no DNA manipulated by humans) flora in nature on and in the ground , in and outside your body and in all living beings that eat. For sure it is not in the food and fluids that you eat and drink, that would be too obvious, of course.

And on the hypothesis

This discovery made it possible to develop a precise hypothesis for how CO2 makes us fatter: We breathe more CO2, which makes our blood more acidic; this affects our brain, so we want to eat more.

If I do not want to get fat, I should eat a lot of calcium (if and when calcium would make my blood less acidic).

[moses]

And on the hypothesis:
This discovery made it possible to develop a precise hypothesis for how CO2 makes us fatter: We breathe more CO2, which makes our blood more acidic; this affects our brain, so we want to eat more.
If I do not want to get fat, I should eat a lot of calcium (if and when calcium would make my blood less acidic).
MrAmsterdam
Our breathing rate is usually determined by the acidity of the blood. Thus high acidity increases the breathing rate which lowers CO2 concentration which decreases acidity. A fairly quick increase in the concentration of inhaled CO2 will upset this balance, as will quite high levels of acidity. However the slow increase in atmospheric CO2 will only result in an increase in the average breathing rate, not the average acidity of the blood.

Similarly eating a lot of calcium might initially decrease blood acidity, although this is complicated, but the lowered acidity will only decrease the breathing rate and increase CO2 concentration which will increase acidity. Calcium is a particularly interesting mineral because increased entry of calcium into cells impairs them and is the usual cause of cell death.

Also it is worth mentioning that panicking increases breathing rate which lowers blood CO2 and this causes many problems but especially low oxygen availability to cells due to the red cells not being able to efficiently give up their O2 in a low CO2 environment. Trauma can lead to a chronic impetus to breathe faster leading to the above conditions setting in chronically.
Mo

[seasmith]

WOULDN'T KNOW IT FROM THE HEADLINES, but Arctic sea-ice increasing:

With a total extent of 15.24 million square kilometers (5.88 million square miles), sea ice was below the 1979–2000 average, but slightly above the record low, which was recorded during the winter of 2010–2011.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/v ... c=eoa-iotd

[phyllotaxis]

Go easy on the calcium-- that stuff is more dangerous than you think

and while we're on the topic, this

[tholden]

http://climateconference.heartland.org/


Chicago, May 21-23

These guys may not be aware that there is a paradigm question involved in whether or not anybody should believe that our sun heats up and cools off periodically.

[GaryN]

Nasa scientist: climate change is a moral issue on a par with slavery

Prof Jim Hansen to use lecture at Edinburgh International Science Festival to call for worldwide tax on all carbon emissions.

Averting the worst consequences of human-induced climate change is a "great moral issue" on a par with slavery, according to the leading Nasa climate scientist Prof Jim Hansen.

He argues that storing up expensive and destructive consequences for society in future is an "injustice of one generation to others".

Hansen, who will next Tuesday be awarded the prestigious Edinburgh Medal for his contribution to science, will also in his acceptance speech call for a worldwide tax on all carbon emissions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ate-change

I'd bet he has a stake in the Chicago mafias carbon trading/derivatives scheme.

[seasmith]

GaryN » Sat Apr 07, 2012 7:58 pm

Nasa scientist: climate change is a moral issue on a par with slavery
Prof Jim Hansen to use lecture at Edinburgh International Science Festival to call for worldwide tax on all carbon emissions.

Averting the worst consequences of human-induced climate change is a "great moral issue" on a par with slavery, according to the leading Nasa climate scientist Prof Jim Hansen.

He argues that storing up expensive and destructive consequences for society in future is an "injustice of one generation to others".

Hansen, who will next Tuesday be awarded the prestigious Edinburgh Medal for his contribution to science, will also in his acceptance speech call for a worldwide tax on all carbon emissions.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ate-change

I'd bet he has a stake in the Chicago mafias carbon trading/derivatives scheme.

You are so cynical.

[MrAmsterdam]

No...they are actually becoming more acidic.

Like I said, not wrong, just more alarmist.

And we are talking about large time-scales here. Timescales large enough to threaten our species if we continue our polluting and ecosystem-destroying ways for much longer.

So what is the expected change in CO2 over what timescale, and how does that compare to the current PH range?

And this would be the first time that nature is confronted by a more acidic sea?

Please keep in mind that next to CO2 there are other factors at play here. Pollution, overfishing, destruction of several ocean biotopes....etc etc.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop ... o1441.html

Adaptive evolution of a key phytoplankton species to ocean acidification

Ocean acidification, the drop in seawater pH associated with the ongoing enrichment of marine waters with carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning, may seriously impair marine calcifying organisms. Our present understanding of the sensitivity of marine life to ocean acidification is based primarily on short-term experiments, in which organisms are exposed to increased concentrations of CO2. However, phytoplankton species with short generation times, in particular, may be able to respond to environmental alterations through adaptive evolution.

Under Climate Change, Winners and Losers On the Coral Reef

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 121351.htm

"The good news is that, rather than experiencing wholesale destruction, many coral reefs will survive climate change by changing the mix of coral species as the ocean warms and becomes more acidic," said Terry Hughes of James Cook University in Australia. "That's important for people who rely on the rich and beautiful coral reefs of today for food, tourism, and other livelihoods."

My conclusion is that phytoplankton and coral species are heretics and pseudo-skeptics and simply don't believe that higher levels of CO2 and a more acidic sea will lead to their own destruction and are probably paid by the oil industry to behave like this.

Either that or nature and underwater life is very flexible in coping with a changing CO2 environment.

[GaryN]

There seems to be a growing disconnect between the NASA brass and their employees.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.
Select excerpts from the letter:
“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/h ... te-models/

[seasmith]

2.8 Million Years of Arctic Climate Change from Lake El’gygytgyn, NE Russia

ABSTRACT
The reliability of Arctic climate predictions is currently hampered by insufficient knowledge of natural climate variability in the past. A sediment core from Lake El’gygytgyn (NE Russia) provides a continuous high-resolution record from the Arctic spanning the past 2.8 Ma. The core reveals numerous “super interglacials” during the Quaternary, with maximum summer temperatures and annual precipitation during marine benthic isotope stages (MIS) 11c and 31 ~4-5°C and ~300 mm higher than those of MIS 1 and 5e. Climate simulations show these extreme warm conditions are difficult to explain with greenhouse gas and astronomical forcing alone, implying the importance of amplifying feedbacks and far field influences. The timing of Arctic warming relative to West Antarctic Ice Sheet retreats implies strong interhemispheric climate connectivity.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early ... 5.abstract