The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - Archive

Posted by: marakai

The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - Archive - 16/11/2009 00:22

Greenland is melting, The Arctic icecap is melting, Sea levels are rising.
But hang on The vikings grew Wheat and Barley in Greenland over a thousand yr's ago, Roald Amundsen Sailed up the North West passage a hundred yr's ago, Sea levels were higher a thousand yr's ago during the medieval warm period than they are now.

So what's going on with the Climate? if Anthropogenic Carbon production is heating the planet now and over the last Century why has the Northwest passage been frozen over for most of it, why cant they grow wheat in Greenland now, why are sea level's lower today than they were 1000 yr's ago?

A recent IPCC report states that Warming of the climate is “unequivocal” But I read that there are many Scientist's who do not agree with the IPCC, The Denialist's , those who think that the IPCC is based more on policy than Science, some of these people even have peer reviewed papers they say that the IPCC has Misrepresented when writing their report's or only used data that supports the IPCC agenda.

So where IS the Science in the IPCC that is unequivocal? Where is the Science that can be duplicated rather than Computer models that do not even take into account Cloudcover.
Why does the IPCC use government appointed people to produce their Summary for Policy Makers rather than independent scientist's with no reliance on the panel or politics.

Why does the IPCC have no balanced view? IE it is all doom and gloom, (you dont hear them saying)Temperatures will rise by 6deg.C but Europe and North America will not be enveloped by a 2km thick icesheet in the next century (as it was 10.000yr's ago).

If it wasn't for the largest Tax of all time on the way it would be laughable, but there is and it isn't funny at all.
I for one would like to know where the consensus is, you hear it everyday in the news but from my reading there isn't one at all.

What do you think Science or Policy?

Posted by: SBT

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/11/2009 14:25

They can't say anything because they know it is piffle sorry I mean policy.


Not only is it an open cheque book for governments to increase taxes and for the carpet baggers to step in and sell 'carbon credits' it is scaring people into making them believe that the process is one that we created. The whole concept is based on very poor research, dodgy data, even dodgier data collection methods and in my opinion, nothing but a smoke screen to take the focus away from the more important issues in the world today, namely the global financial crisis.

This is the worlds greatest hoax since the Y2K bug.
Give a failed politician an ability to put pictures on a screen with a more than liberal dose of waffle and you end up with "The sky is falling" mentality amongst some of the worlds leaders.

I for one don't believe the hype, the scare tactics or the quasi-scientific drivel being espoused by so called experts nor do I appreciate being called a denialist just because I don't wish to follow the herd in blaming mankind for being responsible for what is a natural occurance.

Is it any wonder that an organisation cannot get their facts squared away when most of the data being supplied is incorrect, taken out of context, is biased or a downright lie.

IF I am wrong I will admit it but think about this for a second, if the powers that be where really concerned about carbon being released into the atmosphere then why do we still have:
Carbonated drinks?
Cremations?
Bushfires release how much carbon? So why isn't the entire nation issued with knapsack sprayers and mobilised to put them out?
Crops after harvest put how much carbon back into the ground as they rot so why aren't farmers all millionaires?
Are we not a carbon based life form that when we die and are buried do we not also accumulate a 'carbon credit'?
Where do I bury the carbon produced from a badly cooked snag? Who do I send the bill to?
Who is going to collect all the horded sheets of carbon paper stashed all over the world and where are they going to bury it?

I am attempting to book a water ski holiday for the Artic in 2013 but nobody seems to know if there will be any ice or not. grin
Posted by: ColdFront

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/11/2009 15:19

I don't know Marakai so I can't weigh in. There are numerous people in this forum already that are making all sorts of comments without any scientific background.

Time will tell I guess. I recall when I was very young a program on tv ridiculing a scientist that said if we don't reverse our ways we would lose huge numbers of animals and plants.

Some 30 years on 1/3 of our animals ,birds and plants are threatened with extinction. Of course the flow on from this is that we may be also.

I have no reason to support or dismiss GW other than what science is telling us.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/11/2009 16:03

And what is that and where is that science coldy?? This is the whole problem with this debate is the evidence for AGW is based on computor models and the evidence against is based on historical evidence and observation. Go outside and have a look around, see any evidence of the planet going A over T, sure some animals are threatened but there are discoveries everyday of new species, its called evolution and proves that the planet is very capable of looking after itself....
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/11/2009 16:14

With some of the arguments that are repeated ad naseum by deniers no matter how many times the truth is explained it is obvious that climate denialism is a massive hoax motivated by political and commercial interests.

Two arguments in particular that I refer to are 'cooling trend for 8 years', when predictions from 1983 specifically state that natural variation can neutralise Co2 warming for periods of up to 20 years, and 'surface record is contaminated by UHI', even when the satellite records show almost the same rate of warming.

edit: and add simo's post above...

There is more evidence that politics has interfered with the IPCC process to downplay the risk of AGW, then there is evidence that politics has interfered with the IPCC process to exagerate the risks.

For instance consider the case of the IPCC burning embers diagram. Link. Authors of the IPCC report have specifically complained that government officials had put pressure on them to leave out a diagram that officials considered too alarming.

In contrast accusations of government interference towards alarmism rely on accusations from minority climate scientists that their views are not being considered fairly, and so a bias is assumed to exist on the basis that the majority view is wrong. The possibility that the minority view is ignored because it is blatantly wrong and not because of government interference is of course ignored.
Posted by: Severely Tall

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/11/2009 16:27

Those in favour of AGW have provided pages and pages of evidence, and yet again we see claims of their being no observational evidence. News Flash: look at the 5 warmest years on record and tell me how certain people can claim a cooling trend without a statistical coverup and use of poor science.

What is this data from the MWP based on? Proxies. Pure and simple....not actual values but values that we have estimated based on current climate, all subject to error and no worse than Climate Models? Why is it that Climate models can simulate the past 30 years very accurately but this doesnt constitute them being a useful tool? Maybe its a fear of technology and evidence that is not liked. Of course Global Climate models happen to take into account a huge amount of observational and historical data in order to simulate the atmosphere...so naturally they can not in any way be based on observational and historical data...cough. They dont use cruddy proxy data as not only is it non continuous, but it also isn't reliable.

I personally am a little concerned with the rainfall this year, and over the past 4...in the entire instrumental record Melbourne had never recorded a year below 450mm until 2006, now we are on track to have our 4th in succession...with only one month above average and similar is true for most of the state (although thankfully for many farmers this rainfall was nicely timed for some cropping). If that isnt an example of a worrying trend...where there appears to be a complete seasonal shift in the past 10 years then what is?

What I see here is denials first based on...oh a model predicted it so it cant be true, followed by, oh even if it is warming its all natural so it doesnt really matter.

As stated in the other thread I do not support the ETS and Carbon Taxes as I believe them to be a moneymaking exercise rather than effective, but enough of spouting rhetoric and anti-technoligical sentiment in order to question the basis of climate science. If those who do not agree with AGW truly had a case to show us otherwise then maybe we would be able to debate the issue of science, but until factual and scientific (not proxy) information is provided then it becomes a slandering match.
Posted by: Anemoi

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/11/2009 17:35

Originally Posted By: Sir BoabTree
They can't say anything because they know it is piffle sorry I mean policy.

...

IF I am wrong I will admit it but think about this for a second, if the powers that be where really concerned about carbon being released into the atmosphere then why do we still have:
Carbonated drinks?
Cremations?
Bushfires release how much carbon? So why isn't the entire nation issued with knapsack sprayers and mobilised to put them out?
Crops after harvest put how much carbon back into the ground as they rot so why aren't farmers all millionaires?
Are we not a carbon based life form that when we die and are buried do we not also accumulate a 'carbon credit'?
Where do I bury the carbon produced from a badly cooked snag? Who do I send the bill to?
Who is going to collect all the horded sheets of carbon paper stashed all over the world and where are they going to bury it?


So I await your admition Sir Boab

The lack of the most basic understanding of the carbon cycle, as reflected in most of your questions, seems an appropriate pointer to the lack of science.
All living things on the surface of the earth are part of the global carbon cycle, through plants, animals, soil and air a roughly balanced amount of carbon passes around and around. That has developed to a current point of relative equilibrium over milions of years.
The billions of tons of carbon released rapidly by fossil fuel burning, buried carbon collected over millions of years, during industrial times is obviously extraneous to this previously balanced level and alters the whole physico-chemical baseline, and thereby alters a whole range of interdependent biological systems.
Really, the level of most arguments against significant human effects on the climate are puerile and too often repeated.
Depending upon how you actually do it, farming and agriculture can add soil carbon and nutrition. Or it can degrade it and release significant amounts of carbon that would otherwise be sequestered by biological systems we have cleared away, ie forest, vegetation.
Posted by: windyrob

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/11/2009 18:41

The AGW crowd claimed a scientific consensus, despite the fact that a consensus is unscientific. Shame the scientist never got a vote.
The AGW crowd claimed there was not a medieval warm period, based on non temperature proxies. Discounting hundreds of scientist work. They then refused to use updated proxies that refuted their claims.
The AGW models claimed warming would occur and we got cooling. Your only as good as your last prediction!
The AGW models claimed the antarctic would warm, 30years of cooling.
The AGW models claimed an upper troposphere hotspot that doesn't exist.
The AGW crowd violated their own charter and the peer review process by failing to produce methods and data. It turned out they had something to hide.
The AGW crowd claimed positive feedback, yet cant find it anywhere despite spending 60billion. The observations show negative feedback in agreement with free energy principles that enhanced AGW violates. Water vapor decreased as temp increased. case closed!

AGW is not science, as science embraces scepticism to further understanding, rather than using Ad Hom attacks to intimidate opponents. It demands that the thesis and antithesis be given equal consideration, rather than the three monkey routine that alarmist use to select cherries. Meanwhile the ignore the massive forcing cause by a 4% decrease in low clouds that corresponds to the changes in climate, unlike CO2 that lags temp by 800 years.

As a trained scientist I am appalled that this has been allowed to be popularised.
Dozens of IPCC scientist agree with me and have quit in protest, how many whistle blowers do you need?
There is 700 hundred international scientist who have signed their up to Senator Inhofe's list, thats more than a handful (ie 5) of sceptics.

Strangely its not a hard decision for me to pick a side!
Posted by: Arnost

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/11/2009 19:38

ST / Mike,

I support windyrob’s post above. The bottom line is that (given the observational evidence over that the world IS warming), it is nevertheless a logical non-sequiteur to immediately use that as PROOF that it is man-made.

There are (by the same token) pages and pages of evidence that the world was as warm (if nit warmer) in the Medieval, the Roman, the Minoan Warm periods. These have been established by “proxy records” admittedly, but not just from a chronology of a few pines or larches. These come from anecdotal evidence, tree line extents, biological indicators and fossil records. Not to mention most ice-cores.



If there were warmer periods in the past caused by some non-anthropogenic forcing – we NEED to rule out that they are not a factor today. And even if we do so, we need to show that a warming will have that disastrous effect so beloved by the warming community.

I suggested earlier that we look into the historical record and baseline the temps – look and Heinrich & DO events. Agree to the magnitude of the previous warming. Without that, given the frankly poor science associated with the proxy reconstructions as relied on by the IPCC, we can never get anywhere…
Posted by: SBT

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/11/2009 19:50

The observations are questions I was asked by Girl Guides at a recent presentation I delivered on Cyclone Preparations in the tropics last week. OK so they where from 10 to 14 year olds but I repeated them in my post, admittedly in a light hearted manner, because they where asked of me in a serious manner and I couldn't give them a serious answer.

I am not a scientist, far from it but I have been shuffling around this planet for 53 years and can tell when I am being fed bull shot on a grand scale and I feel I have been handed a bib and I am just waiting for the giant novelty spoon to turn up in the post.

We will just have to agree to disagree then.
Posted by: Severely Tall

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/11/2009 20:40

The AGW crowd claimed a scientific consensus, despite the fact that a consensus is unscientific. Shame the scientist never got a vote.
They never claimed a scientific consensus, they claimed a consensus amongst the peer reviewed literature which was valid, and an IPCC model consensus. A consensus dictates that the majority of evidence suggests a warming. So I guess you missed the whole concept of evidence.

The AGW crowd claimed there was not a medieval warm period, based on non temperature proxies. Discounting hundreds of scientist work. They then refused to use updated proxies that refuted their claims.
Where? When and by who? I dont see any evidence of this in anything ive read so Id really be interested to hear more about this rather outlandish claim.

The AGW models claimed warming would occur and we got cooling. Your only as good as your last prediction!
Windyrob. How many times do I have to repeat myself to you. The recent cooling "trend" is not a trend at all. It is not statistically significant to any degree, and in fact is a shocking statistical lie based on 1998 being an exceptional El Nino. Need I remind the readers here that 2006,2007,2008 all are rated among the hottest 5 years in recorded history? Does this suggest a cooling trend? No. Look at the 20 year, and indeed the 30 year trend...both are positive. Global Warming postulates a warming trend into the future and that this indicates a certain change by a certain period rather than predicting an interannual variability. Why: because the simulations in a climate model cannot be correlated on an individual year to year basis. Also these claims arent based on just one model...dozens of independant and different simulations: guess what: they all point to the same thing.

The AGW models claimed the antarctic would warm, 30years of cooling. At what level, where, be more specific than claiming outlandish things, for instance what happened on the Ice Shelf?
The AGW models claimed an upper troposphere hotspot that doesn't exist.
A minor value that is inconsequential, it may have to do with the coupling of the chemistry component which is currently under work and will be part of various models for AR5.

The AGW crowd violated their own charter and the peer review process by failing to produce methods and data. It turned out they had something to hide. Wheres your evidence? Why does one bad scientist curse us all? You guys have Plimer...need I say more? This is again a generalistation as I described in the other thread.Suprisingly enough a massive peer review process was undertaken of dozens of articles on the subject prior to what you claim to be the 'AGW crowd'.


The AGW crowd claimed positive feedback, yet cant find it anywhere despite spending 60billion. The observations show negative feedback in agreement with free energy principles that enhanced AGW violates. Water vapor decreased as temp increased. This of course violates your own principles, you claim that water vapour decreases yet the TWPICE research indicates and increase of Cirriform tropical cloud...what you mean to say (using your facts) is that theres appears to be a decrease in lower level atmospheric water vapour producing clouds in some locations. This of course is offset in others...and has already been examined. Sorry...the only case that is closed here is that there is bad science on both sides.

I should also note that there is no consensus between those of the other side...some claim it isnt warming at all, others cooling? and yet there is a claim that there isnt warming and its a well established fact?

I agree Arnost that we do need to look further back into the past...its just a bit tricky given we have to trust uncorrelated proxies the further back we go (for instance the melted ice cap on Kilamenjaro was a previously used source, but its fast disapearing). I acknowledge there are good proxies, but they are mostly ice cores as tree ring data is often unreliable and non continuous at 150 years or more before present. This would help in indicating the significance of the current warming. Another important point here is it is warming, at a relatively rapid rate...and this might cause problems...we need to look further at how we predict what will happen into the future...this is what AR5 is for.

Its not like the "AGW crowd" instantly came up with a consensus....check the Assessment reports, the data has come together after years of research and 3 previous reports based on dozens of model runs.
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/11/2009 23:23

Quote:
They never claimed a scientific consensus, they claimed a consensus amongst the peer reviewed literature which was valid, and an IPCC model consensus. A consensus dictates that the majority of evidence suggests a warming. So I guess you missed the whole concept of evidence.


Severely Tall , I also do not believe there is a consensus, even in the IPCC peer reviewed papers and Data,

Quote:
Dr. Atte Korhola, professor of environmental change at the University of Helsinki, is an expert in lake sediment studies.

Atte Korhola: “Some curves and data have been used upside down, and this is not a compliment to climate science. And in this context it is relevant to note that the same people who are behind this are running what may be the world’s most influential climate website, RealClimate. With this they are contributing to the credibility of science – or reducing it. And in my opinion this is alarming because it bears on the credibility of the field, and if these kinds of things emerge often – that data have been used insufficiently or even falsely, or if data series have been truncated or they have not been appropriately published (for replication), it obviously erodes the credibility, and this is a serious problem.”

VO: The author of the September study, Darrell Kaufman, admitted his mistake two weeks ago and sent a correction to the journal Science. But the main author of a previous study, Michael Mann, the father of the original hockey stick, still sticks to the claim that a hockey stick was found at the bottom of lake Korttajärvi.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/michael-mann-having-an-impact/

Quote:

Conclusion

The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning. The climatically inefficient and economically disastrous Kyoto Protocol, based on IPCC projections, was correctly defined by President George W. Bush as “fatally flawed”. This criticism was recently followed by the President of Russia Vladimir V. Putin. I hope that their rational views might save the world from enormous damage that could be induced by implementing recommendations based on distorted science.


Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
Warsaw, Poland



Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus
Richard S. Lindzen


Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Quote:

The present hysteria formally began in the summer of 1988, although preparations had been put in place at least three years earlier. That was an especially warm summer in some regions, particularly in the United States. The abrupt increase in temperature in the late 1970s was too abrupt to be associated with the smooth increase in carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in testimony before Sen. Al Gore's Committee on Science, Technology and Space, said, in effect, that he was 99 percent certain that temperature had increased and that there was some greenhouse warming. He made no statement concerning the relation between the two.
(SNIP)
A parochial issue is the danger to the science of climatology. As far as I can tell, there has actually been reduced funding for existing climate research. That may seem paradoxical, but, at least in the United States, the vastly increased number of scientists and others involving themselves in climate as well as the gigantic programs attaching themselves to climate have substantially outstripped the increases in funding. Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right'' results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming'' in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). Finally, given the momentum that has been building up among so many interest groups to fight "global warming,'' it becomes downright embarrassing to support basic climate research. After all, one would hate to admit that one had mobilized so many resources without the basic science's being in place. Nevertheless, given the large increase in the number of people associating themselves with climatology and the dependence of much of that community on the perceived threat of warming, it seems unlikely that the scientific community will offer much resistance. I should add that as ever greater numbers of individuals attach themselves to the warming problem, the pressures against solving the problem grow proportionally; an inordinate number of individuals and groups depend on the problem's remaining.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html


This is just a few examples of the IPCC's own people raising problems, so even amongst it's own members there is apparently no consensus.


Quote:
The AGW crowd claimed there was not a medieval warm period, based on non temperature proxies. Discounting hundreds of scientist work. They then refused to use updated proxies that refuted their claims.
Where? When and by who? I dont see any evidence of this in anything ive read so Id really be interested to hear more about this rather outlandish claim.



Manns infamous hockey stick?

Quote:

I agree Arnost that we do need to look further back into the past...its just a bit tricky given we have to trust uncorrelated proxies the further back we go (for instance the melted ice cap on Kilamenjaro was a previously used source, but its fast disapearing). I acknowledge there are good proxies, but they are mostly ice cores as tree ring data is often unreliable and non continuous at 150 years or more before present. This would help in indicating the significance of the current warming. Another important point here is it is warming, at a relatively rapid rate...and this might cause problems...we need to look further at how we predict what will happen into the future...this is what AR5 is for.



The current warming is not out of the ordinary at all considering that the historical temperature records that the IPCC rely on carry a margin of error of 0.7 deg C.

Posted by: Vlasta

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/11/2009 23:34



I am attempting to book a water ski holiday for the Artic in 2013 but nobody seems to know if there will be any ice or not. grin
[/quote]

Surely the Russians can accommodate you , but at a cost for an icebreaker . Another reason why Arctic ice is down . 10 fold increase of "traffic" during summer
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 17/11/2009 00:08

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
And what is that and where is that science coldy?? This is the whole problem with this debate is the evidence for AGW is based on computor models and the evidence against is based on historical evidence and observation. Go outside and have a look around, see any evidence of the planet going A over T, sure some animals are threatened but there are discoveries everyday of new species, its called evolution and proves that the planet is very capable of looking after itself....


Mike
What is wrong with this post ?
Nothing at all . Iam only surprised we dont see much about from biologists who specializing in evolution . Its only logic that if we get 50 years of increasing CO2 , plants will react somehow. Slowly proccesing more and more of that ' polutant"

A herd of elephants took only 20 years to work out why they are being killed for . They sttoped growing ivory! smile Good on them . Elephants do know what death means
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 17/11/2009 08:14

[
Originally Posted By: windyrob
The AGW crowd claimed a scientific consensus, despite the fact that a consensus is unscientific. Shame the scientist never got a vote.


They have voted and 98% agree.

Originally Posted By: windyrob

The AGW crowd claimed there was not a medieval warm period, based on non temperature proxies. Discounting hundreds of scientist work. They then refused to use updated proxies that refuted their claims.

The AGW crowd's version of the medieval warming period is only a couple tenths of a degree cooler than the Loehle version. Don't the deniers have anything more significant to criticise??

Originally Posted By: windyrob

The AGW models claimed warming would occur and we got cooling. Your only as good as your last prediction!

As I said three posts ago the models predicted that we could have cooling for up to 20 years. We have had cooling for 8 years. The overall warming since the 80s when the models started their prediction.

Originally Posted By: windyrob

The AGW models claimed the antarctic would warm, 30years of cooling.

Older models got it wrong for a small part of the earth. Modern models get it right.

Originally Posted By: windyrob
The AGW models claimed an upper troposphere hotspot that doesn't exist.


Perhaps. Or perhaps the observations are wrong. If the deniers would show more honesty and/or competence on issues such as the recent cooling trend, and the claim that the hotspot is a signature of AGW and not just one aspect out of many in the models, then maybe I'd take this issue a little more seriouisly.

Originally Posted By: windyrob

The AGW crowd violated their own charter and the peer review process by failing to produce methods and data. It turned out they had something to hide..

The peer review process does not require more data and methods than publihed in the papers. If you really were a trained scientist as you claim you should understand this. The argument that the peer review process should require more data and methods than currently provided is a different argument and one I would generally support.

And if you want to find someone who has something to hide, look no further than Mr Watts who has collected all the station data he said would prove that GISS was flawed, yet has never released the results of this analysis.

Originally Posted By: windyrob

The AGW crowd claimed positive feedback, yet cant find it anywhere despite spending 60billion. The observations show negative feedback in agreement with free energy principles that enhanced AGW violates. Water vapor decreased as temp increased. case closed!


Water vapor is not the only postive feedback. Have you noticed a little thing called the melting of the Arctic. Case closed for AGW that at least one positive feedback certainly exists.

And on water vapor, measurements over long periods of time based on poor coverage in the upper atmosphere, and based on instruments that have changed show a reduction in water vapor. Measurements at the surface, and over recent periods of time through the upper atmosphere with satellite instruments that have not changed show an increase as predicted by the models.

Originally Posted By: windyrob

AGW is not science, as science embraces scepticism to further understanding, rather than using Ad Hom attacks to intimidate opponents. It demands that the thesis and antithesis be given equal consideration, rather than the three monkey routine that alarmist use to select cherries. Meanwhile the ignore the massive forcing cause by a 4% decrease in low clouds that corresponds to the changes in climate, unlike CO2 that lags temp by 800 years.

As a trained scientist I am appalled that this has been allowed to be popularised.

Denialism is not science. Science does not continually repeat the claim that 8 years of cooling disproves the models when the models predict we could get up to 20. How can you be a trained scientist and support such a claim?

Originally Posted By: windyrob

Dozens of IPCC scientist agree with me and have quit in protest, how many whistle blowers do you need?


Can you name two dozen IPCC scientists who have quit in protest. Or is this another lie?

Originally Posted By: windyrob

There is 700 hundred international scientist who have signed their up to Senator Inhofe's list, thats more than a handful (ie 5) of sceptics.

Strangely its not a hard decision for me to pick a side!


To be an international scientist on these lists, all you have to have is a degree in any scientific field that may have nothing to do with climate. Like myself. I'm an international scientist, hip hip hooray. There are millions of us on this planet, and it is a good reflection on our training that such a tiny minority of us have signed this petition.

edit note: submit button accidently hit while writing this post.
Posted by: Severely Tall

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 17/11/2009 10:10

To further what Mike has said here....since when does everyone agree with anything? Nothing i said about the concept of a consensus suggests that everyone has to agree...only a majority. Funny thing is that for the "AGW crowd" this majority is a very large one. Amusingly enough democratic process still makes sense and constitutes a consensus....it is the consensus of the American Meteorology Society...which alone numbers over 14000 (and is just a small segement of the community)...which far outweighs just 700 scientists from various fields. Truth is that if you actually showed the results (without the various spins and media influences) the evidence is straightforward and logical deduction would in most cases lead to the same consensus view.
Posted by: Locke

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 17/11/2009 10:42

Why was the potential 20 years of cooling not spoken about when the "hockey stick" was first rolled out?

Why has the possiblity of 20 years of cooling only been raised in recent times. I had long been a firm believer in AGW but I can't recall ever being told well we might have a couple of decades of cooler temps several years ago when I first started looking into this.

Can someone please point me to any AGW material over 2 years old which suggests that natural causes might override AGW for a decade or 2 because I don't think I ever saw it.
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2009 01:11

Quote:
Denialism is not science. Science does not continually repeat the claim that 8 years of cooling disproves the models when the models predict we could get up to 20. How can you be a trained scientist and support such a claim?


Denialism is not science, nor is the IPCC science, The whole AGW scenario stem's from the IPCC, an organisation setup to "investigate" the concerns about global warming. THE SCIENCE is relied upon by the IPCC to back up their claim that the cause of global warming is anthropogenic.

SCIENCE being what it is , is never really settled nor is it satisfied. Just a couple of hundred years ago the Majority view was that the earth was flat and was the centre of the universe, would you consider that a consensus view? The people that questioned that view were ostracised and sometimes murdered. Sure science has come a long way since then but the underlying values are still there (or were till recently).
There are some serious questions that are being asked about the validity of the Science that the IPCC is using to promote it's agenda and they are being asked by a number of people, some that include a few of the very scientists that the IPCC is basing it's evidence upon.
As I've already said the IPCC is not Science, it is basically the U.N, an organisation that has a great track record around the world Rwanda, Bosnia, Africa, sure it has some great Scientists on the books but it is a purely political organisation, The IPCC final draft for policy makers is made up by a panel of international government appointed people that cant even agree on the wording of the document without taking a vote. just a small example

Quote:
"Participants discussed whether it would be clearer to state that warming of the climate system is “unequivocal” or “evident.” Participants agreed to state that warming is “unequivocal.” Canada, with Germany and Switzerland, suggested adding a reference to the accelerating trend of warming. China, New Zealand, and South Africa, supported by the Coordinating Lead Authors, opposed this, given the possibility of decadal variability, and the reference was not included in this section.

On text noting high decadal variability in Arctic temperatures, Canada, supported by Norway, suggested removing a specific reference to a warm period observed from 1925 to 1945. The Coordinating Lead Authors explained that “climate skeptics” often point to this warm spell to question the IPCC for not acknowledging such warm spells. Participants agreed to keep the reference."

http://www.climatechangefacts.info

Science or Policy?

Quote:
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science


Do models fit this description when they are endlessly tweaked to fit the observed data? Are the models Science or research?
The models form the basis for a lot of the IPCC's data but if they do not agree with observed data they get changed time and again until they fit, they are still trying to fit cloud cover into the models (good luck). The models are consistently trying to catch up with the observed data and then when they do something else pops up and they need to be changed again and again and again.
The other problem with models is that they only spit out what is put in, IE if you are looking for somthing you can find it much like a political survey, (depends on who is running the survey,) ask the right questions to get the right answers).

The consensus as we know it at the moment is not one of scientists it is that of the IPCC and nothing else, who else is out there pushing this besides the greens and those with a vested interest in Carbon Credits?(Gore the first Carbon Billionare in the World)

I'm not even a scientists toenail, I spend my days digging holes, sweating and getting covered in dirt and grime doing civil works, one of my passions tho is Palaeontology, I have a history of Eco tourism (ten yrs) and a bit of natural resource managment amongst other things associated with that as well, one being a stint as a volunteer at a museum excavating and restoring Fossils from Australia's not so distant past.Some from Alcoota an area that used to contain a large number of Freshwater lakes, all the Animals in that area died from Climate change a long time before Carbon was even a word.

I'd like to ask the people that have responded on this thread that say they are scientists the question, have you really asked yourselves the big questions involved in this debate based on science based grounds? Do you personally think that you have taken into account all the views expressed
when forming your opinions and do you think that there is the possibility that you may be wrong even in the face of the Consensus?
Posted by: windyrob

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2009 07:41

Here is all the evidence needed to disprove water vapor positive feedback.
The satellite measurements of upper troposphere water vapor are shown by the red line. They are decreasing! The Enhanced AGW theory requires them to be increasing. The evidence speaks for itself! (from climate4you.)
Please post a graph of claimed increased water vapor if you have one, or concede! smile

Posted by: Vlasta

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2009 12:45

That raises question
What is the difference between CO2 , CH4 and water vapor as a greenhouse gas ?
Theory of CO2 and CH4 is that they bounce back to earth ORL .
Even satelite data supports it,as anomoly shows warmer at the surface and cooler lower stratosphere against satelite mean of 1980-2000.

So let it bounce back and forth 10 times and the ORL eventualy find its way to space anyway , as the molecules are so far apart .
What water molecules are doing in this case ?
IMO CO2's 380 ppm or 450 makes no difference.
Posted by: Severely Tall

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2009 15:44

Quote:
Here is all the evidence needed to disprove water vapor positive feedback.
The satellite measurements of upper troposphere water vapor are shown by the red line. They are decreasing! The Enhanced AGW theory requires them to be increasing. The evidence speaks for itself! (from climate4you.)
Please post a graph of claimed increased water vapor if you have one, or concede!


As with the last time this was posted, I ask again...where is this graph from (as in sampled location)? What data is it based on? IIRC this is a convient bit of sampling ive seen on a site. If one selects the right location anyone can get a graph like this...and whats more the instrumental measurement method has been questioned before. Lets review this...your argument is that because this one aspect might be flawed the whole thing is codswallop? Sorry...but if we look at things that way its not science its media interpretation. And incidentally science would not exist without research.

Some reference material for the vapour:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

And some other stuff for how an actual trend is calculated for the warming which is evidence of a warming over the last ten years(not endpoint, trend based on each graph point).
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/GISStrends.jpg
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2009 18:08

ST, you really will have to do a whole lot better than to quote from Real Climate.

Anybody who is any way questioning or doubtful about the claimed effects of CO2 on global temperatures and that includes the fence sitters who don't quite know who to believe but who have been around for a while, will know that Gavin Schmidt of Real Climate does not allow any serious questioning or significant debate about the claimed seriously damaging warming effects of increases in global CO2 levels.
And some very respectable and very qualified climate researchers are even banned by Schmidt.

Any questioning or any arguments raised about the Real Climate claims of the CO2 warming effects is simply moderated out as so many, even non skeptics, have experienced in the past and some of those non skeptical AGW believers have been pretty vocal about Schmidt's attitude.
Gavin Schmidt is of course a IPCC modeler and like all the members of [ Hockey ] Team simply does not accept that his work should be questioned by any skeptics or anybody else for that matter.

But even Gavin Schmidt may just possibly only be doing his master's bidding in the Real Climate blog!
Real Climate is fully funded through a large but low profile environmental public relations company with huge funds available for lobbying of politicians and any other organisations including the full range of the media, that are open to manipulation.
An interlocking group of these environmental lobbying and black propaganda organisations which are used to discredit other company's products on so called environmental grounds are closely linked to the left wing multi billionaire George Soros.
Soros is believed to provide all the funds necessary to run Real Climate through these other organisations at no cost to any of the RC front men.
Why?
Soros being Soros no doubt has some huge investments in Carbon Trading companies and brokerages so keeping the pot boiling over the dangerous CO2 and the need to "mitigate CO2 emmissions " through a carbon trading scheme will make an awful lot more money for Soros.

And just for icing, RC's traffic count is apparently very slowly deteriorating as well as posters and readers steadily drift away to other more accountable and more open sources that are far more respecting of posters with alternate views of climate and are prepared to allow posting of those alternate views.
Posted by: windyrob

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2009 18:15

Its from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project. Location earth smile while a satellite changeover did occur during the critical moment there is plenty of over evidence for a climate shift at this point, including a massive increase in pacific warm pool and changes in convection.
By the way I don't consider Realclimate reference material. You can show me something from the IPCC if you can find it, since clearly they must have some evidence that water vapour is increasing in the upper troposphere to make their claims. Maybe they can extract a signal from some wind data, lol.
Posted by: Severely Tall

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2009 19:42

Ive been working on a few little things so here we go.

Reply: The MWP
There is actually no good evidence that the MWP was indeed a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that did exhibit notable warmth, Europe for example, but all of the various global proxy reconstructions agree that it is warmer now and the temperature is rising faster than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years. Anecdotal evidence like Norse farmers in Greenland can never tell you a global story.

NOAA presents a whole selection of proxy studies together with the data they are based on and these can be found at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
NOAA has this to say about the MWP:

"The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect."

Reply: On the consensus
Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

* the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend that is beyond the range of natural variability.
* the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2
* the rise in CO2 is the result of fossil fuel burning.
* if CO2 continues to rise over the next century the warming will continue
* a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment

While theories and alternate view points in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents are in a very small minority. If one requires unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either.

This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1). This is the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and is arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world..

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

in either one or both of these documents: [PDF] [PDF]

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If that isnt a consensus then what is?

Right and so Simmosurf, and your own references from Watts up with That or any of those other garbagy sites is any better...not to mention numerous graphs which dont actually statistically analyses anything? Well theres the duality ive come to expect. The funding by other sources is no less pronounced for those of the other side so get off your high horse. If you really want to debate this issue how about you acknowledge that skeptics (and I use this term with its full meaning here) actually have no idea why the planet is warming (as Arnost has stated...it is an acknowledged fact unless you want to take poor statistics), cant explain it and so look to pick holes in any argument by various technicalities. The truth is I havent seen anything achieved by those against in the form of any sort of report which explains the problem....Of course if we stick to peer reviewed literature the arguments are in trouble as many of the "referenced" papers are selectively quoted or misrepresented.

Reply: The Hockey or not So Representative Stick
And the hockey stick...clearly the representations of two papers are representative of a whole field....nice work...good "science" there. The mischaracterization of this pair of paleoclimatic studies as the "foundation" of Global Warming theory couldnt be more wrong.

To Windyrob:
So i assume from earth (duh) you mean that its a climatological value...taken on a single day of the year, from a mean earth representation and daily mean thereof...or is it a singular selection point as I made clear in my prior post? Fantastic Source you have there from Climate4you. If you really want to play hardball heres some material and peer reviewed stuff...which uses good satellite data to prove the models are right. The problem with the data youve selected there is that it is known to have problems. OOOPS. For example this is measured on a particularly difficult level using backscattered radiation from atmospheric water vapour...which is terribly unreliable and subject to larger error.

How about this stuff:
There is no climate model or climate textbook that does not discuss the role water vapor plays in the Greenhouse Effect. It is the strongest Greenhouse gas, contributing 36% - 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered as a climate "forcing" because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature. If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the Earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air it would quickly be replaced through evaporation. This has the interesting consequence that if one could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, has an atmospheric lifetime of centuries before natural sinks will finish absorbing any excess from the air. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to the CO2, the humidity rises and the increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2 driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

Heres some actual peer reviewed references:
Trends and variability in column-integrated atmospheric water vapor. KE Trenberth, J Fasullo, L Smith - Climate Dynamics, 2005

Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to global warming
IM Held, BJ Soden - Journal of Climate, 2006


OR maybe this
Science 4 November 2005:
Vol. 310. no. 5749, pp. 841 - 844
DOI: 10.1126/science.1115602
The Radiative Signature of Upper Tropospheric Moistening
Brian J. Soden,1* Darren L. Jackson,2 V. Ramaswamy,3 M. D. Schwarzkopf,3 Xianglei Huang4

Water Vapor Feedback in Climate Models
Robert D. Cess (4 November 2005)
Science 310 (5749), 795. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1119258]
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2009 20:26

When using all that vast array of knowledge you have so proudly placed before us ST, proving just how wrong and how little the skeptics really know , it might just be wise to consider a couple of Albert Einstein's most famous quotes;

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Albert Einstein

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."

Albert Einstein
[ This one hung in Einstein's office ]
Posted by: Severely Tall

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2009 21:22

ROM...I have no problem with "skeptics" having their problems with current theory, however I do have a problem with misrepresentation and using poor science or and falsities to attempt to sway others. I try and present here why current AGW seems to be the best theory out there....but I still havent seen any experiment which incontravertibly disproves that there is any sort of human influence on global warming. I dont see a single peer reviewed experiment that would be the evidence such as Einstein referred to in general.

While we can't do a perfect job, I fail to see any evidence suggesting that we dont have the least idea...in fact the evidence is to the contrary.

I know I wont convince you to have my views, as your minds are shut and your wont actually discuss in reasonable terms, but just maybe ill keep someone from becoming a victim of misinformation.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2009 22:44

ST:
Quote:
…however I do have a problem with misrepresentation and using poor science or and falsities to attempt to sway others


I also have a problem with misrepresentation and using poor science or falsities to change history.

Quote:
Reply: The MWP
There is actually no good evidence that the MWP was indeed a globally warm period comparable to today.


Hmmm… I beg to differ as I think there is good evidence for just that.

There are literally hundreds of studies showing that there was a global warm period then. Me thinks that the statement "The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" will most likely itself turn out to be incorrect…

As ROM pointed out – and paraphrasing Einstein: “All it takes is one fact to prove this wrong”. So here are two things impossible in today’s climes (one for each side of the globe).

Viking farm / settlement excavated out of permafrost - Gården under Sandet

Elephant seal breeding colony on the shores of Antarctica a 1000 – 500 years ago: (PNAS Article)


Trying to get rid of or downplay the MWP appears to be nothing but an attempt to re-write history. For every proxy study with mangled stats showing no warming, I’ll show you a picture:


You can’t tell me that a couple of tons of elephant seal is going to haul it’s ass over kilometers of ice to a breeding ground… Just as you can’t tell me that a dendochronologist will do a field study and sample just 12 trees…!

And another thing on rewriting history… A Wiki page on the Roman Warming Period just can not be created – even the discussions on why it should be created have just been deleted. And they call us deniers…!

Oh yes – the hundreds of studies: Medieval Warm Period Project

Quote:
…as your minds are shut and your wont actually discuss in reasonable terms...


Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2009 22:54

ST Please post me the actual evidence (experiments and who did them) that proves CO2 will cause the catastrophe that is about to befall us.. I can only find evidence that the first 20ppm causes warming then begins to saturate, as has been posted a million times.
"I try and present here why current AGW seems to be the best theory out there...." So its got to be right then eh??? Open up your mind matey!!
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2009 23:16

Simmo he cant as kinda we would know about it . And the lenghty explanations of AGW from "scientists" and take it as own stance , come on . I have read it before .
Have a look on R. Spencer site ( be prepared for hours of reading)and tell me then how ilogical his stance is ?
That guy doesnt rely on any grants as he is UHA scientist.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/page/2/
Posted by: teckert

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2009 23:23

Another reminder to refrain from forcing one's own beliefs on another.
This thread is for discussion on the science in climate change & is not to be used for trying to 'convert'.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 19/11/2009 08:14

Originally Posted By: Locke
Why was the potential 20 years of cooling not spoken about when the "hockey stick" was first rolled out?

Why has the possiblity of 20 years of cooling only been raised in recent times. I had long been a firm believer in AGW but I can't recall ever being told well we might have a couple of decades of cooler temps several years ago when I first started looking into this.

Can someone please point me to any AGW material over 2 years old which suggests that natural causes might override AGW for a decade or 2 because I don't think I ever saw it.





Hansen in 1981 wrote this paper which clearly states that natural variation is strong enough that Co2 could take up to 20 years to overcome it. The only difference is today Co2 warming is stronger, so it should take a bit les than 20 years.

More recently Real climate have written a post on model variability estimating up to 15 years time to break a temperature record. And showing these individual model runs:
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 19/11/2009 14:07

Mike
Can you please answer some questions on behalf of Hansen ?
As he is so busy waiting for replies from most heads of states to whom he sent letters "soon there wont be time to act'

I give Hansen a big credit for removing UHI stations from his data sets .
But what he doesnt know that UHI has no effect on global temperaturs ( as it must be less than 0.01% of earths surface)
Unfortunately about 30% of weather stations are inside UHI !!
Thatswhy GISS has 0.3C adjustment for it .
My question is who decided on the 0.3C ? general consensus ?
Nope . Most "scientists" who work with GISS,s graphs wouldnt even know there is such adjusmtent . How about 0.5C adjustment , those graphs would look diffrent wouldnt they?

See the point ? One man (hansen) drives the whole policy.
No less than 8 posters posted beliefs about UHI and support my claim , that there is no global warming or better put, not as much as we are told .
On page 3 of this article you can see what happens to graph , when NOAA removed UHI adjusment
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAMAY.pdf

On their website then we see how many months this year were almost the hottest on record . I wonder why ? Wouldnt it be because of the removal of UHI adjusment ? Any science in this ?
Perfect example Melbourne's La Trobe station. Hansen removed it (correctly) as we know UHI is aprox 2C maybe more at night, and replaced it by Melbourne ap. There we get even higher day time temps , but fortunatly lower minima. Good on him . Airport stations originaly were build for aviation purposes and not for climatology.

We could over night cut emissions by 100% by simply have 2 hours rations of electicity . As retired I support such drastic move back to stone age
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 19/11/2009 15:04

Originally Posted By: Vlasta
Mike
Can you please answer some questions on behalf of Hansen ?
As he is so busy waiting for replies from most heads of states to whom he sent letters "soon there wont be time to act'

I give Hansen a big credit for removing UHI stations from his data sets .
But what he doesnt know that UHI has no effect on global temperaturs ( as it must be less than 0.01% of earths surface)
Unfortunately about 30% of weather stations are inside UHI !!
Thatswhy GISS has 0.3C adjustment for it .
My question is who decided on the 0.3C ? general consensus ?
Nope . Most "scientists" who work with GISS,s graphs wouldnt even know there is such adjusmtent . How about 0.5C adjustment , those graphs would look diffrent wouldnt they?

See the point ? One man (hansen) drives the whole policy.
No less than 8 posters posted beliefs about UHI and support my claim , that there is no global warming or better put, not as much as we are told .
On page 3 of this article you can see what happens to graph , when NOAA removed UHI adjusment
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAMAY.pdf

On their website then we see how many months this year were almost the hottest on record . I wonder why ? Wouldnt it be because of the removal of UHI adjusment ? Any science in this ?
Perfect example Melbourne's La Trobe station. Hansen removed it (correctly) as we know UHI is aprox 2C maybe more at night, and replaced it by Melbourne ap. There we get even higher day time temps , but fortunatly lower minima. Good on him . Airport stations originaly were build for aviation purposes and not for climatology.

We could over night cut emissions by 100% by simply have 2 hours rations of electicity . As retired I support such drastic move back to stone age


You are wrong about there being a 0.3 degree adjustment to GISS for UHI. GISS adjusts for UHI on a station by station basis, with different adjustments at different stations, and different adjustments at different time. If you don't trust all these complicated adjusments, then trust the satellite data instead which is immune to UHI influence, and shows exactly the same warming trend as GISS.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 19/11/2009 16:16

Originally Posted By: windyrob
Here is all the evidence needed to disprove water vapor positive feedback.
The satellite measurements of upper troposphere water vapor are shown by the red line. They are decreasing! The Enhanced AGW theory requires them to be increasing. The evidence speaks for itself! (from climate4you.)
Please post a graph of claimed increased water vapor if you have one, or concede! smile



I've had a look at both the cliamte4you page, and the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project sites and cannot find anything on water vapor. It could be somewhere there I didn't find of course.

Here is a link to a peer reviewed analysis on water vapor content which confirms an increasing atmospheric water vapor content as predicted by climate models. This paper is referenced in the IPCC fourth assessment report.

The chart looks very suspicious in the severity of the change in water vapor in the upper atmosphere. Water vapour dominates greenhouse warming, and the upper atmosphere dominates the water vapor effect. From memory, without looking up values, the greenhouse effect is around 30 degrees, water vapour at least 50%, and the upper atmosphere at least 50% of that, so more than 7 degrees due to upper atmospheric water vapour. Your chart shows a reduction in upper atmospheric water vapour of around 25%, which should have caused a cooling of close to 2 degrees.

This amount of reduction in water vapour just does not make sense.
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 19/11/2009 17:37

Quote:
There is actually no good evidence that the MWP was indeed a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that did exhibit notable warmth, Europe for example, but all of the various global proxy reconstructions agree that it is warmer now and the temperature is rising faster than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years. Anecdotal evidence like Norse farmers in Greenland can never tell you a global story.


Quote:

Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies. Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058. Note: Figure 1 data are available in a CSV file.

Loehle, C., and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies. Energy & Environment 19(1): 93-100. Note: Supplemental data are available in a ZIP file.

Historical data provide a baseline for judging how anomalous recent temperature changes are and for assessing the degree to which organisms are likely to be adversely affected by current or future warming. Climate histories are commonly reconstructed from a variety of sources, including ice cores, tree rings, and sediment. Tree-ring data, being the most abundant for recent centuries, tend to dominate reconstructions. There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not properly capture long-term climate changes. In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained that were not based on tree ring data. Data in each series were smoothed with a 30-year running mean. All data were then converted to anomalies by subtracting the mean of each series from that series. The overall mean series was then computed by simple averaging. The mean time series shows quite coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.

Copyright © 2007 by Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd. All rights reserved. Article posted on this website with permission.
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025




RE the rest of your post Severely Tall are you brewskie or did you just lift it from him here? http://landandpeople.blogspot.com/2007/12/senate-skeptics.html
Posted by: Keith

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 19/11/2009 17:52

Whoever he is, he's suffering furorem scribendi.
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 19/11/2009 20:39

Originally Posted By: ROM
When using all that vast array of knowledge you have so proudly placed before us ST, proving just how wrong and how little the skeptics really know , it might just be wise to consider a couple of Albert Einstein's most famous quotes;

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Albert Einstein

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."

Albert Einstein
[ This one hung in Einstein's office ]


Quote:
The causes of global warming—the
increase of approximately 0.8±0.1 °C in
the average global temperature near
Earth’s surface since 1900—are not as
apparent as some recent scientific publications
and the popular media indicate.
We contend that the changes in
Earth’s average surface temperature are
directly linked to two distinctly different
aspects of the Sun’s dynamics: the
short-term statistical fluctuations in the
Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term
solar cycles. This argument for directly
linking the Sun’s dynamics to the response
of Earth’s climate is based on
our research and augments the interpretation
of the causes of global warming
presented in the United Nations
2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) report.1
The most debated issue in contemporary
science is the cause or causes of
global warming, with the popular
media contending that the issue has
been resolved and that the majority of
scientists concur. The “majority opinion”
is based on the analysis of global
warming done using large-scale computer
codes that incorporate all identified
physical and chemical mechanisms
into global circulation models (GCMs)
in an attempt to recreate and understand
the variability in Earth’s average
temperature. The IPCC report1 concludes
that the contribution of solar
variability to global warming is negligible,
to a certainty of 95%. It is reported
that the “majority” believes the average
warming observed since the beginning
of the industrial era is due to the increase
in anthropogenic greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere.


Nicola Scafetta is a research associate in the Duke University physics department. Bruce West is chief scientist in the mathematical and
information science directorate, US Army Research Office, in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.


http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf

The biggest influence in our Galaxy causing Warming on Earth ? OR Cooling ?NO WAY!!!
Quote:
sunspot number: 29
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 18 Nov 2009

Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2009 total: 243 days (76%)
Since 2004: 754 days
Typical Solar Min: 485 days
explanation | more info
Updated 18 Nov 2009
http://www.spaceweather.com/
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 19/11/2009 22:31

Quote:
Those listed here have, since the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, made statements that conflict with at least one of these principal conclusions. Inclusion is based on specific, attributable statements in the individual's own words, and not on listings in petitions or surveys. In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of a Fourth Assessment Report, which contains similar conclusions. All statements in opposition to the consensus were made following the most recently released IPCC report at the time of the statement.

For the purpose of this list, a scientist is a person who has published at least one peer-reviewed article during their lifetime in the broadly-construed area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in recent years nor in a field relevant to climate.

SNIP

Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Attribution of climate change, based on Meehl et al. (2004), which represents the consensus view


Individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

* Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."[13][14][15]
* Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[16]
* George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."[17]
* Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[18]
* David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[19]
* Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"[20]
* William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[21] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[22] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[23]
* William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[24]
* George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."[25]
* David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[26]
* William Happer, physicist Princeton University: "all the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"[27]
* Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[28]
* Tim Patterson[29], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[30][31]
* Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[32]
* Harrison Schmitt, former Astronaut, chair of the NASA Advisory Council, Adjunct Professor of engineering physics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison:"I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect".[33]
* Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error...human influence on the 'Greenhouse Effect' is minimal (maximum 4%). Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 4% of the ~2% of the "Greenhouse Effect", hence an influence of less than 1 permil of the Earth's total natural 'Greenhouse Effect' (some 0.03°C of the total ~33°C)."[34]
* Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.[35]
* Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[36][37] “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[38]
* Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[39]
* Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".[40]
* Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."[41]
* Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."[42]
* Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."[43]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sci..._global_warming


0.038%... The total % of Co2 in the Atmosphere.

Quote:
Occam's razor

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.

Though the principle may seem rather trivial, it is essential for model building because of what is known as the "underdetermination of theories by data". For a given set of observations or data, there is always an infinite number of possible models explaining those same data. This is because a model normally represents an infinite number of possible cases, of which the observed cases are only a finite subset. The non-observed cases are inferred by postulating general rules covering both actual and potential observations.

For example, through two data points in a diagram you can always draw a straight line, and induce that all further observations will lie on that line. However, you could also draw an infinite variety of the most complicated curves passing through those same two points, and these curves would fit the empirical data just as well. Only Occam's razor would in this case guide you in choosing the "straight" (i.e. linear) relation as best candidate model. A similar reasoning can be made for n data points lying in any kind of distribution.

SNIP

However, its significance might be extended to metaphysics if it is interpreted as saying that simpler models are more likely to be correct than complex ones, in other words, that "nature" prefers simplicity.



http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/occamraz.htm

Just what are the statistical odds that something that account's for less than half of one percent of the total atmosphere of our Planet being the driving force behind a rise of (insert number here) deg C over the next century or a sea level rise of (insert number here)?.

Compared to the forces of the Sun, Orbit, Tilt, Wobble to name but a few? just the Tilt alone gives us our Seasons, enough to bring snow and ice to formerly sunny climes. 0.038 %????

I for one do just not buy it, Sure there is warming, but there is also Cooling. But the Earth has been there and done that many times before.
Posted by: Long Road Home

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 00:37

Well said.. those other forces have a much greater influence than some gas that doesnt even occupy a 20th of a percent of the atmosphere and here we have another heatwave starting to become aimlessly blamed on AGW like we never had one before.
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 01:14

Mike

Most of data's and graphs on climate4you are from Hadcru. Now I uderstand a bit more to questions I asked 2 pages back .
But I dont understand why water vapor would have so dramatic effect on temperatures . On the same page as were water vapor graphs also are clouds cover changes . And we all understand albedo. Had water vapor had so big effect we would have boiled all water when Vikings were farming Greenland.
And to GISS adjustments comment you are right . I just wonder the formula for those adjustments. Melbourne ap is classified as populated area . We know that day time temperature is say same as Melbourne. So it qualifies for 2C UHI. Minima are much lower at Melbourne ap.and it falls into category 'rural'.
How do you make adjusments to only one station from XXX remaining on GISS'data sets one by one ?
Here is the GISS's page , where anybody can check any Hansens' station and data

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/



Posted by: Keith

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 06:55

Had the current heatwave started in December, nobody would have blinked an eyelid about it. So what if it's breaking November records? Records are always being broken. And just for the record, I recorded a maximum temperature of a little over 40° in October 1995. There's nothing new about this at all.

If the GW science was subjected to the same rigor as legal processes the AGW case would fall to pieces (it has anyway, in my view). Instead, we have monstrous edifices of so-called 'facts' built on the foundations of purely circumstantial evidence, fortified by abstract philosphical concepts. That is what science has become. The 'aim, apparatus, method, conclusion' approach that I once learned has been thrown away, especially in the 'consensus' faculty.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 07:31

Why is the fact that Co2 is 0.38% of the atmosphere being brought up in a thead titled 'Science in AGW Climate Change'? Is this what you consider to be good solid scientific evidence??

Saying Co2 cannot have an effect because it is 0.38% of atmosphere is as wrong as saying that the sun cannot have any effect on climate because The sun is something like 0.008% of the sky.

The biggest tool in the climate change denial toolkit is not scientific accuracy but the sheer number of incorrect arguments, and the attempt to create confusion.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 07:34

Originally Posted By: Keith
Had the current heatwave started in December, nobody would have blinked an eyelid about it. So what if it's breaking November records? Records are always being broken. And just for the record, I recorded a maximum temperature of a little over 40° in October 1995. There's nothing new about this at all.

If the GW science was subjected to the same rigor as legal processes the AGW case would fall to pieces (it has anyway, in my view). Instead, we have monstrous edifices of so-called 'facts' built on the foundations of purely circumstantial evidence, fortified by abstract philosphical concepts. That is what science has become. The 'aim, apparatus, method, conclusion' approach that I once learned has been thrown away, especially in the 'consensus' faculty.


Scientists did not build AGW on a heatwave in November. You have provided zero evidence against AGW, but instead yet more propoganda in a thread that judging by the title is supposed to have something to do with science.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 07:55

Originally Posted By: Vlasta
Mike

Most of data's and graphs on climate4you are from Hadcru. Now I uderstand a bit more to questions I asked 2 pages back .
But I dont understand why water vapor would have so dramatic effect on temperatures . On the same page as were water vapor graphs also are clouds cover changes . And we all understand albedo. Had water vapor had so big effect we would have boiled all water when Vikings were farming Greenland.


I don't see why. The water vapour effect is strong enough to be the dominant cause of raising earth's temperature by about 30 degrees.

Originally Posted By: Vlasta

And to GISS adjustments comment you are right . I just wonder the formula for those adjustments. Melbourne ap is classified as populated area . We know that day time temperature is say same as Melbourne. So it qualifies for 2C UHI. Minima are much lower at Melbourne ap.and it falls into category 'rural'.
How do you make adjusments to only one station from XXX remaining on GISS'data sets one by one ?
Here is the GISS's page , where anybody can check any Hansens' station and data

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/



I haven't looked into much detail on the individual adjustments made by GISS. One thing I do know is that the adjustments are made by an automated process. If such a process is as complicated as I get the impression GISS is, then it is quite likely that the adjustments will not make sense for some individual stations. If such a process is well designed the cases that do not make sense will be few, and will not affect the result strongly. At this stage I am willing to take GISS on trust that their adjustments generally (but no necessarily always) make good sense, particularly as the trend is quite close to that measured by the satellites. When discussing climate change I am happy to use Uah so as to simply avoid the question of whether GISS is good or not.

I would change my mind on GISS if someone:
a) pointed to a specific flaw in the process,
b) gave some examples of how this flaw impacted on individual stations,
c) calculated how much of an effect this flaw has on the global average.

I am not aware of any of the criticsms of GISS having attempted step c).
Posted by: Arnost

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 07:57

Check out the latest post at Lucia's Blackboard... LOL
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 08:23

To points a)-c) I'd also add I'd have more serious concerns about GISS if accusations of data hiding as serious as the ones against CRU were raised. The CRU issues may be a storm in a tea cup, but for the time being I'm happy to agree to never use CRU again...
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 10:05

Thanks for the heads up, Arnost.
My brief reading of Lucia's blog sure shows that things are not very pretty at all in the main centre of the AGW camp and in fact look downright nasty and corrupt in a lot of aspects.
If a journalist now has this info which from a comment, seems to be the case, there just could be a very large upheaval indeed if the politicals are shown that they have been hoodwinked for all this time by a very small coterie of AGW ideologists ably assisted by a whole gross of "environmental" [ ? ] outfits more interested in their enlarging their own power base than in truth and honesty to the public.
Now watch for the spin, spin, spin and more spin, generally known to the ordinary person as lying!

Rudd blames the heat wave here in Australia on Global Warming.
Meanwhile a massive new cold spell and snow storms are rolling into North America and apparently are about to do the same in Europe around the end of November, just in time for Copenhagen.
Truth and honesty seems to be something that Rudd does not seem to be particularly familiar with.
Posted by: Keith

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 10:43

Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
Originally Posted By: Keith
Had the current heatwave started in December, nobody would have blinked an eyelid about it. So what if it's breaking November records? Records are always being broken. And just for the record, I recorded a maximum temperature of a little over 40° in October 1995. There's nothing new about this at all.

If the GW science was subjected to the same rigor as legal processes the AGW case would fall to pieces (it has anyway, in my view). Instead, we have monstrous edifices of so-called 'facts' built on the foundations of purely circumstantial evidence, fortified by abstract philosphical concepts. That is what science has become. The 'aim, apparatus, method, conclusion' approach that I once learned has been thrown away, especially in the 'consensus' faculty.


Scientists did not build AGW on a heatwave in November. You have provided zero evidence against AGW, but instead yet more propoganda in a thread that judging by the title is supposed to have something to do with science.


I didn't say scientists did, Mike. You always come out with combative responses about providing evidence, and 'propaganda', before bothering to count to ten and read and understand or ask further questions of others who don't agree with you. Sorry but I don't think that's a scientific response. And I don't think the GW people have exactly come up with anything more to support their position than the circumstantial evidence I referred to. If it can't hypothetically stand up in court, the onus of proof remains with the GW side ie not that there is/isn't warming (there is, but with some reservation on my part), but that 'anthropos' is guilty. I don't understand why that view is unreasonable.

One of the reasons I'm reluctant to say anything here is because of the defensiveness people adopt when the science is challenged.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 11:31

Professional weather forecasters are yet to be convinced by a long shot!
They are the people on the ground looking at the weather daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, decadely, and longer all the time
and should be fairly well in touch with what is going on! Very interestinmg results. (Of course in everyday practice they likely have to toe the AGW line to keep their jobs though)
"Published in the October 2009 issue of “Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society” (BAMS), a new survey indicates that a significant number of professional meteorologists doubt that manmade sources of greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming. The survey was vetted by an advi­sory board of climate experts, including representatives from NOAA, the NWS, UCAR, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Pew Center for Global Climate Change, and many members of the AMS.

Meteorologists’ climate change survey results:
· When asked about the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) statement that “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced,” a full 50% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. 25% were neutral and only 24% said they agreed or strongly agreed;
· 52% of the meteorologists disagreed with the statement that “Global climate models are reliable in their projections for a warming of the planet.” Only 19% agreed with the statement;
· Almost a third of respondents agreed (19%) or strongly agreed (10%) that “global warm­ing is a scam”;
· When the meteorologists were asked to identify the “greatest obstacle to reporting on climate change,” their top answer (41%) was “too much scientific uncertainty.”"
http://www.examiner.com/x-3089-LA-Ecopolitics-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Meteorologists-Climate-Change-Survey
(I know that I posted this on the another AGW thread, but seems to be in this ones topic also.)
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 11:54

Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
Originally Posted By: windyrob
Here is all the evidence needed to disprove water vapor positive feedback.
The satellite measurements of upper troposphere water vapor are shown by the red line. They are decreasing! The Enhanced AGW theory requires them to be increasing. The evidence speaks for itself! (from climate4you.)
Please post a graph of claimed increased water vapor if you have one, or concede! smile



I've had a look at both the cliamte4you page, and the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project sites and cannot find anything on water vapor. It could be somewhere there I didn't find of course.

Here is a link to a peer reviewed analysis on water vapor content which confirms an increasing atmospheric water vapor content as predicted by climate models. This paper is referenced in the IPCC fourth assessment report.

The chart looks very suspicious in the severity of the change in water vapor in the upper atmosphere. Water vapour dominates greenhouse warming, and the upper atmosphere dominates the water vapor effect. From memory, without looking up values, the greenhouse effect is around 30 degrees, water vapour at least 50%, and the upper atmosphere at least 50% of that, so more than 7 degrees due to upper atmospheric water vapour. Your chart shows a reduction in upper atmospheric water vapour of around 25%, which should have caused a cooling of close to 2 degrees.

This amount of reduction in water vapour just does not make sense.


What I meant by statement that water vapour cant have such a big effect I reffered to your comment
The reduction in upper atmospheric water vapour of around 25% which should have caused a cooling of close to 2 degrees.
Maybe its 1C or 0.5 who knows. As I pointed out before, satelite readings at same altitude show cooling as well
You could have unintentionally cracked the puzzle as I dont deny CO2 has warming effect . So mother nature created a valve to deal with it
Posted by: Locke

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 11:55

Originally Posted By: ROM


Rudd blames the heat wave here in Australia on Global Warming.
Meanwhile a massive new cold spell and snow storms are rolling into North America and apparently are about to do the same in Europe around the end of November, just in time for Copenhagen.
Truth and honesty seems to be something that Rudd does not seem to be particularly familiar with.


Rudd is a hypocrite.

You could argue that any global attempt to reduce carbon emissions could not be done without involving China and any serious reduction in Chinese economic output would have devastating consequences for the Australian economy.

Calling for action on climate change here and then embracing the economic benefits obtained from the massive amounts of carbon emissions that China produces from the use of our primary resources is complete hypocrisy in my mind.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 12:03

Originally Posted By: Keith

I didn't say scientists did, Mike. ...

One of the reasons I'm reluctant to say anything here is because of the defensiveness people adopt when the science is challenged.


So did you challenge the science or didn't you?

If you did challenge the science of AGW, what exactly was the challenge?

If you didn't challenge the science of AGW, why are you posting in a thread called 'The Science in AGW Climate Change'?
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 12:06

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
Professional weather forecasters are yet to be convinced by a long shot!


If you follow the link to the actual survey report, it is a survey of Television Weather Presenters.

Should the opinions of TV forecasts be considered as scientific evidence for or against a theory?
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 14:41

Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
Why is the fact that Co2 is 0.38% of the atmosphere being brought up in a thead titled 'Science in AGW Climate Change'? Is this what you consider to be good solid scientific evidence??

Saying Co2 cannot have an effect because it is 0.38% of atmosphere is as wrong as saying that the sun cannot have any effect on climate because The sun is something like 0.008% of the sky.


I agree with Mike on this: the argument that a gas which constitutes less than 1% of the atmosphere by volume does not have a significant affect on the climate assumes a proportional response, i.e. the impact on climate is proportional to the quantity of gas.

=> CO2 is released into the air by burning fossil fuels.
=> The air temperature increases due to radiant heat energy originating from at the surface being absorbed at lower and lower levels in the atmosphere [known as opacity].
=> Increasing the air temperature increases the rate of evaporation and transpiration.
=> More water vapour is released into the lower atmosphere.
=> Increased quantities of water vapour in the lower atmosphere increase radiant heat energy absorbed by the lower atmosphere from the surface (in the absence of clouds – clouds cover roughly 60% of the globe at any one time).
=> The air temperature rises.
=> Higher clouds result in more heating, lower clouds, more cooling (application of Ideal Gas Law and Opacity Principle).
=> This is a positive feedback for water vapour resulting from increasing CO2 concentrations.
=> Water vapour is not uniformly distributed in lower atmosphere, either vertically or horizontally.
=> CO2 is uniformly distributed in lower atmosphere, and decreases uniformly with altitude.
=> In the absence of clouds the warming effects due to CO2 can potentially be pronounced.
=> In the absence of water vapour the warming effects due to CO2 can potentially be pronounced.
=> As water covers roughly 70% of the globe, there is the potential for increased heating resulting from a positive water vapour feedback, resulting from increasing CO2 concentrations.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 14:59

"The survey was distributed by e-mail to broadcast meteorologists on the AMS listserve (numbering approximately 800) the week of 8 May 2008. There were 121 responses by 7 June, which was more than the expected goal of 100. Direct comparisons between this highly selective sample of AMS members and the larger random mail sample of all TV weathercasters published in 2002 are difficult. Different questions and methodologies were used. General patterns will be noted, but since this sample is selected from only AMS meteorologists, we can’t know from these data whether all TV weathercasters share their perspectives or not" Quote from the link Mike...sounds like Meteorologists survey to me!
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 15:28

A lot of ifs and buts in that list Naz, and lack of mention of what solar and ocean and albedo & otherv atmospheric-ocean interchanges,etc are doing.
It is not as simple as just listing all those if's and buts. The complecity is just not understood well enough in reality. Our feeble brains cannot cope with it all, neither can our feeble computers either. God sits in His heavens and laughs at our feeble efforts I would reckon on this extremely complex issue.
Posted by: Keith

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 16:05

Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
Originally Posted By: Keith

I didn't say scientists did, Mike. ...

One of the reasons I'm reluctant to say anything here is because of the defensiveness people adopt when the science is challenged.


So did you challenge the science or didn't you?

If you did challenge the science of AGW, what exactly was the challenge?

If you didn't challenge the science of AGW, why are you posting in a thread called 'The Science in AGW Climate Change'?


Mike, I'm not even going to answer that. My original post clearly explains my position. I know you don't agree, but that's OK. Let's leave it that.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 16:06

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
A lot of ifs and buts in that list Naz, and lack of mention of what solar and ocean and albedo & otherv atmospheric-ocean interchanges,etc are doing.

Yes, it is but one mechanism. One explanation among many…no more speculative than many others and therefore no more robust either…which is why I place a strong emphasis on understanding AGW Science rather than ifs or buts. If there are other reasonable possibilities to investigate, then let us examine them smile.
Posted by: Severely Tall

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 17:07

121 Weather Presenters (which in the US means they must have undergraduate meteorology degrees at a minimum) is not really a very good survey of opinion......121/800 is poor to say the least, Can we really say this is reflective of the something near 2000 independant weather presenters in the US? Or of a large proportion of the meteorology professionals....Nope....Its like many polls completely irrelevant due to biases in the population of replies.
Posted by: Anemoi

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 20:19

None of us are supposed to be behind the wheel of a car on the road if we have more than just 0.05-0.08% ethanol in our blood, it's a crime as they say... and an even smaller percentage in terms of our whole body weight (<0.001% or so)

So explain how come such a vanishingly small amount of anything has the dramatic effects on our biological system?

Biological systems are entirely dependent upon a range of physico-chemical reactions that are equisitely senstive to, and often highly tuned to, environmental circumstances.
Quantity and effects have no direct correlation in many cases...
That's why 30mg of cyanide (0.00004% of a 75kg human) can kill you through stopping cellular respiration in your whole body.
Though 40-50gm of ethanol (~1 litre of beer) might just make you happy, then hungover.

The lack of basic understanding of earth and biological processes by many so-called skeptics here, and their apparent unwillingness to acknowledge their ignorance, is as I've said before kind of remarkable. Frankly it would be entirely laughable, if it didn't seem to hinder people getting on with actually progressing our understanding of climate more.
Posted by: Rime

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 20:43

Originally Posted By: Anemoi


The lack of basic understanding of earth and biological processes by many so-called skeptics here, and their apparent unwillingness to acknowledge their ignorance, is as I've said before kind of remarkable. Frankly it would be entirely laughable, if it didn't seem to hinder people getting on with actually progressing our understanding of climate more.


So all those skeptics, including those very educated individuals on these forums are ignorant? Well that is it folks! The AGW debate has truly been settled and we can all move on. Thank you for your input. We have learnt so much.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 20:47

You just can't actually believe anything from the other side of your rigid beliefs without dismissing it somehow can you ST!
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 21:02

Quote:
Why is the fact that Co2 is 0.38% of the atmosphere being brought up in a thead titled 'Science in AGW Climate Change'? Is this what you consider to be good solid scientific evidence??

Saying Co2 cannot have an effect because it is 0.38% of atmosphere is as wrong as saying that the sun cannot have any effect on climate because The sun is something like 0.008% of the sky.

The biggest tool in the climate change denial toolkit is not scientific accuracy but the sheer number of incorrect arguments, and the attempt to create confusion.



Originally Posted By: Anemoi
None of us are supposed to be behind the wheel of a car on the road if we have more than just 0.05-0.08% ethanol in our blood, it's a crime as they say... and an even smaller percentage in terms of our whole body weight (<0.001% or so)

So explain how come such a vanishingly small amount of anything has the dramatic effects on our biological system?

Biological systems are entirely dependent upon a range of physico-chemical reactions that are equisitely senstive to, and often highly tuned to, environmental circumstances.
Quantity and effects have no direct correlation in many cases...
That's why 30mg of cyanide (0.00004% of a 75kg human) can kill you through stopping cellular respiration in your whole body.
Though 40-50gm of ethanol (~1 litre of beer) might just make you happy, then hungover.

The lack of basic understanding of earth and biological processes by many so-called skeptics here, and their apparent unwillingness to acknowledge their ignorance, is as I've said before kind of remarkable. Frankly it would be entirely laughable, if it didn't seem to hinder people getting on with actually progressing our understanding of climate more.


Mike et al
My original statement was
Quote:
Just what are the statistical odds that something that account's for less than half of one percent of the total atmosphere of our Planet being the driving force behind a rise of (insert number here) deg C over the next century or a sea level rise of (insert number here)?.

Compared to the forces of the Sun, Orbit, Tilt, Wobble to name but a few? just the Tilt alone gives us our Seasons, enough to bring snow and ice to formerly sunny climes. 0.038 %????

#797487 - 19-11-2009 16:37 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Severely Tall]

And was made in reference to Occams razor. It would help the discussion if you actually read the post's before flying off on tangents.
Posted by: Ijay

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 21:10

Originally Posted By: Anemoi
None of us are supposed to be behind the wheel of a car on the road if we have more than just 0.05-0.08% ethanol in our blood, it's a crime as they say... and an even smaller percentage in terms of our whole body weight (<0.001% or so)

So explain how come such a vanishingly small amount of anything has the dramatic effects on our biological system?

Biological systems are entirely dependent upon a range of physico-chemical reactions that are equisitely senstive to, and often highly tuned to, environmental circumstances.
Quantity and effects have no direct correlation in many cases...
That's why 30mg of cyanide (0.00004% of a 75kg human) can kill you through stopping cellular respiration in your whole body.
Though 40-50gm of ethanol (~1 litre of beer) might just make you happy, then hungover.


Certainly one shouldn't drink and drive.

However, such concentrations do not imply a catastrophe for the body or indeed for intake to be restricted to below these levels at all times.

Cheers !
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 21:20

Well said smile I'll drink to that.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 21:42

For such a young age ST, you seem to be very well versed in the issues of the planet? Can you remember the last wet era, the true floods, the last fantastic cropping season, the last rabbit plague, the fantastic fishing we had before the dreaded European carp, the way the rivers were before the planting of the European willow and the snag drag, to which the Government ordered based on "scientific evidence" and are now pushing back into the rivers for fish habitat, and you believe that Governments and their ilk make good decisions on how we should live!! The fox continues to decimate our native wildlife but the Gov makes it harder for me to retain my shooters license to fix them up for free in the state parks because its better to lock the parks up from the ferals for the ferals, no fire wood collection as a native lives in that log, no burning off as thats creating CO2, pattersons curse and lantana are rife, but thats alright, the bush fires caused by lightning strike due to the storms that global warming is causing started that, gets the native animals every time! Eventually, you will marry, have kids, have a new house and you will love the water you use on your new houses gardens that you extract from the nth/sth pipe line that is almost empty but the Gov said is good for the planet? Wake up to yourself and live a little first before believing everything that your told or read!!
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/11/2009 22:20

Ah! the certitude's of youth.
Well might I remember how we were going to reshape and rebuild the world in our image.
A couple of very nasty wars later, a lot of blood, droughts, fires, floods, recessions, political crisis, zealots, some very nasty, with bloody crusades of every type ready to save the lost of this planet and keep others who probably did not want to be saved anyhow from taking the wrong path.
They have all been in my life at some time and most are now lost in the mists of time and even their shadows have faded away forever.

Earth just keeps right on rolling along and couldn't give a damn about zealots or much else.
She will just keep right on doing what she has always done for the last four and a half billion years.

Amen to all the above, Simmo!
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 21/11/2009 01:31

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
For such a young age ST, you seem to be very well versed in the issues of the planet? Can you remember the last wet era, the true floods, the last fantastic cropping season, the last rabbit plague, the fantastic fishing we had before the dreaded European carp, the way the rivers were before the planting of the European willow and the snag drag, to which the Government ordered based on "scientific evidence" and are now pushing back into the rivers for fish habitat, and you believe that Governments and their ilk make good decisions on how we should live!! The fox continues to decimate our native wildlife but the Gov makes it harder for me to retain my shooters license to fix them up for free in the state parks because its better to lock the parks up from the ferals for the ferals, no fire wood collection as a native lives in that log, no burning off as thats creating CO2, pattersons curse and lantana are rife, but thats alright, the bush fires caused by lightning strike due to the storms that global warming is causing started that, gets the native animals every time! Eventually, you will marry, have kids, have a new house and you will love the water you use on your new houses gardens that you extract from the nth/sth pipe line that is almost empty but the Gov said is good for the planet? Wake up to yourself and live a little first before believing everything that your told or read!!


Originally Posted By: ROM
Ah! the certitude's of youth.
Well might I remember how we were going to reshape and rebuild the world in our image.
A couple of very nasty wars later, a lot of blood, droughts, fires, floods, recessions, political crisis, zealots, some very nasty, with bloody crusades of every type ready to save the lost of this planet and keep others who probably did not want to be saved anyhow from taking the wrong path.
They have all been in my life at some time and most are now lost in the mists of time and even their shadows have faded away forever.

Earth just keeps right on rolling along and couldn't give a damn about zealots or much else.
She will just keep right on doing what she has always done for the last four and a half billion years.

Amen to all the above, Simmo!


Careful guys this thread is all about Science,(NOT). Personal observations are frowned upon due to non peer reviewed data and biased opinions, Old farts that have experienced what Australia's climate has thrown at them during their lifetime must have at least one peer reviewed paper and a Doctorate to add anything of value to this discussion.



depending on your point of view.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 21/11/2009 06:44

Thanks for the criticism marakai and it was heard. My point was simple, science and Gov have made huge mistakes in the past with the environment, all in the last 50 or 60 years since we have started to believe that we control every process on the planet. And now we are well on the way to making another. Experience counts for decision making.
Posted by: teckert

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 21/11/2009 08:46

no more warnings... you've all had enough. Anymore personal attacks or criticisms will incur an immediate ban.
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 21/11/2009 22:31

Originally Posted By: Nazdeck
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
Why is the fact that Co2 is 0.38% of the atmosphere being brought up in a thead titled 'Science in AGW Climate Change'? Is this what you consider to be good solid scientific evidence??

Saying Co2 cannot have an effect because it is 0.38% of atmosphere is as wrong as saying that the sun cannot have any effect on climate because The sun is something like 0.008% of the sky.


I agree with Mike on this: the argument that a gas which constitutes less than 1% of the atmosphere by volume does not have a significant affect on the climate assumes a proportional response, i.e. the impact on climate is proportional to the quantity of gas.

=> CO2 is released into the air by burning fossil fuels.
=> The air temperature increases due to radiant heat energy originating from at the surface being absorbed at lower and lower levels in the atmosphere [known as opacity].
=> Increasing the air temperature increases the rate of evaporation and transpiration.
=> More water vapour is released into the lower atmosphere.
=> Increased quantities of water vapour in the lower atmosphere increase radiant heat energy absorbed by the lower atmosphere from the surface (in the absence of clouds – clouds cover roughly 60% of the globe at any one time).
=> The air temperature rises.
=> Higher clouds result in more heating, lower clouds, more cooling (application of Ideal Gas Law and Opacity Principle).
=> This is a positive feedback for water vapour resulting from increasing CO2 concentrations.
=> Water vapour is not uniformly distributed in lower atmosphere, either vertically or horizontally.
=> CO2 is uniformly distributed in lower atmosphere, and decreases uniformly with altitude.
=> In the absence of clouds the warming effects due to CO2 can potentially be pronounced.
=> In the absence of water vapour the warming effects due to CO2 can potentially be pronounced.
=> As water covers roughly 70% of the globe, there is the potential for increased heating resulting from a positive water vapour feedback, resulting from increasing CO2 concentrations.



O.K so Co2 concentrations are rising every year and have been for the last century, IF Co2 is the driver of Global Warming WHY is it getting Cooler instead of Warmer?
Both land and SST have dropped over the last ten yrs. Is it that Co2 has reached it's saturation point? or that Co2 does not play as big a role in heating the planet as is promoted by the IPCC?
Cloud formation has also been linked to the Solar cycle could this play a role in the greenhouse cycle?
The Sun may only make up 0.008% of the sky but we actually do KNOW for a fact that it plays a much larger role in our planets weather cycle as opposed to the effects of Co2.
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 22/11/2009 00:39

Just a few thoughts on the supposed overwhelming consensus of climate change, I came across an author from the early part of the last century Immanuel Velikovsky. makes for some interesting reading http://www.varchive.org/.

One quote contained in one of his books The Acceptance of Correct Ideas in Science struck me as an apt description of some of the current Scientists that argue against the current dogma of human induced global warming, a little dramatic but still a good comparison of an individual going against the current belief system.
Quote:
In the history of science only the case of Copernicus caused a comparable objection and agitation. But Copernicus spared himself the abuse by the intentional postponement of the publication of his book until his very death. In his last days he was persuaded by his only pupil. Rheticus, to permit him to publish his work, De Revolutionibus, which he dedicated to Pope Paul III. On May 24, 1543, a few hours before Copernicus died, the first copy was put in his hands. In it he said:

“I can easily conceive . . . that as soon as some people learn that in this book which I have written concerning the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, I ascribe certain motions to the Earth, they will cry out at once that I and my theory should be rejected. Accordingly, when I considered in my own mind how absurd a performance it might seem to those who know that the judgement of many centuries has approved the view that the Earth remains fixed as center in the midst of heaven, if I should on the contrary assert that the Earth moves — when I considered this carefully, the contempt which I had to fear because of the novelty and apparent absurdity of my view, nearly induced me to abandon the work I had begun. How did it occur to me to venture, contrary to the accepted view of the mathematicians, and well-nigh contrary to common sense, to form any conception of any terrestrial motion whatsoever?”


We all know now how that ended up.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 22/11/2009 10:34

Another big bad nasty climate destroying, man made disaster that is already being used to scare the herd and to try and ensure the immense profits from an ETS scheme will continue to roll in to the rapacious financial sector are the claims that CO2 will acidify the oceans.

There are over 1.3 billion cubic kilometres of water in the global oceans. [ 1,300,000,000 cubic kiometres ]
Each of those cubic kilometres of sea water weigh somewhere about 1.1 billion tonnes.

The amount of anthrogenic CO2 released by mankind per year is about an "estimated" [?] 2.3 billion tonnes.
That mass of CO2 is approximately equal to the mass of water in 2.3 cubic kilometres of water.

A mass of CO2 equal to about 2.3 cubic kilometres of water added to a mass of sea water of 1.3 billion cubic kilometres each year.

Methinks we could be an awful long time getting those global oceans to change to acid from what is an already high Ph alkalinity level.

There will be of course all sorts of claims on CO2 just mixing in the top layers and numerous other side tracks and deviations that will be attempted to use to frighten the herd as to the severity of the CO2 acidification.
The truth is that nobody really has much of a handle on the global CO2 sinks, where they actually are, how they operate, if they release CO2 back into the atmosphere and etc and etc.
For instance, nobody can tell accurately tell us just how much CO2 is used, absorbed, and possibly released by the great plant like algal masses of the relatively unexplored oceans, oceans that cover close to 80% of the planet's surface.
There is as yet a lot of suggestions floating around on why the measured CO2 levels oscillate back and forth over the swing of the seasons.
It is put down to the plant growth in the northern spring but what about the far greater mass of ocean algae which also change with the seasons in the oceans.

There will be many more twists and turns in this climate saga and of course if the CERN collider which is firing up tonight finally proves Svensmark's hypothesis that clouds are the main controlling feedback that maintains relatively steady global temperatures, then the claims of increasing CO2 as a major climate problem becomes null and void.

And in fact as plants like Wheat for instance gives it's best yields at around 700 ppm of CO2 then more CO2 will be very beneficial indeed for the world at large as our food production is enhanced by the rise in global CO2 levels and that extra yield occurs WITHOUT any extra water or fertilizers.
More CO2, more food and no extra cost.

And overall sits the great nuclear furnace in the sky from which ultimately all life must and does depend on for it's very existence and survival.
The sun just may be going for a bit of a quiet rest for the next few cycles and if it does so, history indicates we should then become really concerned as bitter cold may again be the lot of this planet for the next few decades.
And that would be a possible disaster beyond our imagination.

I think I will take a lot more convincing in this case that our measly annual release of anthrogenic CO2 which is only a very small addition to the levels of natural atmospheric CO2, will acidify the oceans any time soon.
Posted by: Keith

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 22/11/2009 11:18

We are told that the sun's radiation is not a significant cause of the warming. Is man so arrogant that he thinks his contributions can outdo that of the other ways in which the sun affects our weather?

I think he is. And incorrigibly so.
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 22/11/2009 19:48

Quote:
The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.
Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.

Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, and the theory was established in its present form by the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. In 1976 the prestigious journal “Science” published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled “Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopaedia articles about the Ice Ages.

Pravda.ru forum. The place where truth hurts

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-0/
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 23/11/2009 01:08

No evidence for AGW

Quote:
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-111111694523

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-111111694523
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 23/11/2009 01:20

Yes, well I will beleive an ice age when I see one. In the mean time most Russia weather stations are still running at above average temperatures.

The current situation is starting to look quite alarmimg, record hot year for Australia. Currently the northern winter seems to be stalling. Satelite readings at all levels of the atmosphere are now at record highs. Even the positive sea surface anomalies are now more widespread around the world than I have ever seen. And all this at a time of record low solar activity, the evidence against AGW is now at its weakest I have ever seen.

It is still unclear why all this warming, but there is no doubt that warming going on right now as we speak.

I had a thought today why there might have been such a strong rebound in temperatures after the last ice age. When the ice age ended there would have been quite extensive barren areas of the Earth with little vegetation. The cleared landscape could absorb IR well and may have helped overheat the Earth to that peak 8000-5000 years ago. However once the climate restabalised and vegetation once again took hold of the Earth the temperatures cooled back a couple of degrees.

If indeed the sun is the main driver of climate change then that agrees with the medievil warm period and the little ice age. However now this relationship seems to be breaking down, probably due to a combination of land clearing, urbanisation and CO2 levels.

In order to stabalise the climate I think it is just as important to restore forests around the world as it is to reduce CO2 output. That is also why population reduction is so important just reducing CO2 will not be enough. Bacteria over forests act as catalyst for rainfall then rainfall again reduces and stabalises temperatures with cloud cover. Deforestaion and CO2 is to blame for the increasingly sporadic and unrealiable rainfall all over the world not just Australia.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 23/11/2009 06:15

Keith,

No where in mainstream science is the significance of the sun as the driver of the weather engines on our fair planet downplayed. Not in the GISS, not in the CSIRO Atmospheric Research division, no where.

It is downplayed by the AGW high priests, who formulate warming dogma.

I think it is of some importance that the science, Galileo style, assert its dominance over dogma, and populist fallacies.
Posted by: Keith

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 23/11/2009 06:52

Ben, aren't those high priests the ones who formulated the 'consensus'..what was it now, some 2200 scientists? The so-called insignificance of the sun is always being trotted out as one of the many pro-AGW apologetics...it's all over the place. Maybe they are the only ones doing this but if they speak for the 'science', why would that matter? If as you suggest they don't speak for the science, why are we having this Copenhagen farce? If this means that their detractors (those whom the IPCC 'dismissed') are right after all, that seems to me to invalidate the IPCC even further (as in the leaked emails thread).
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 23/11/2009 07:27

Solar activity peaked 50 years ago. The sun has been contributing a cooling trend not a warming trend since then, so if the sun has a stronger impact on climate then mainstream scientists predict, it is more likely that Co2 causes more warming to ofset this cooling, not less.

Originally Posted By: Ben Sandilands
Keith,

It is downplayed by the AGW high priests, who formulate warming dogma.



So who are these AGW high priests formulating dogma and downplaying solar influence?
Posted by: Canberra's Weather

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 23/11/2009 11:00

Oh and another thing to add to the equation is something called population growth.

Call me a skeptic but how is a "carbon pollution reduction scheme" (or some other "well-meaning" effort to reduce CO₂ emissions) going to make any difference, especially as more "carbon polluters" keep getting born (ie. the world's population continues to grow with few checks and balances).
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 23/11/2009 11:27

Solar peaked in the 1990s and has dropped rapidly in recent years, with the 0 to 15 year lag through the ocean-atmosphere system(A Russian scientist says around 15 to 17 years lag) the effects will filter down as they are starting to for the last approx 8 years and will be expected to increase as we move along with the current very weak solar long cycle downturn and expected weak cycles to come.
Posted by: Canberra's Weather

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 23/11/2009 14:33

Fudd, aka Kevin07, said in Parliament today we have to get to the business end, no more delays, the rest of the world has a carbon trading scheme, why not us.

Didn't explain how acting on climate change is actually going to work, and certainly made no mention of how long such a carbon trading scheme or carbon pollution reduction scheme will take to reverse "climate change" or global warming. Instead made references to the panel on climate change being set up 30 years ago.
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 23/11/2009 21:45

I think it was in this thread Mike asked .
Why A Watts doesnt publish his surface stations project ?

He did on his web-site . ((90% or so completed and 89% dont meet NOAA's own requirements !)
Perhaps you meant Why he didnt 'kill" somebody ?
He will , just waited for a moment like now with now shamefull CRU
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 23/11/2009 22:00

Originally Posted By: Canberra's Weather
Oh and another thing to add to the equation is something called population growth.

Call me a skeptic but how is a "carbon pollution reduction scheme" (or some other "well-meaning" effort to reduce CO₂ emissions) going to make any difference, especially as more "carbon polluters" keep getting born (ie. the world's population continues to grow with few checks and balances).



Excellent point C.W, All big business and Gov want population growth for Aus, Even the Eco left Want it, but we are constantly being told to conserve AUS's resources as we have a fragile ecosystem. The reality is tho the bigger the Resource (Population) the bigger the income for both Gov and Multi national Business.
They are not interested in the science of AGW just the income possibility's.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 24/11/2009 08:19

Originally Posted By: Vlasta
I think it was in this thread Mike asked .
Why A Watts doesnt publish his surface stations project ?

He did on his web-site . ((90% or so completed and 89% dont meet NOAA's own requirements !)
Perhaps you meant Why he didnt 'kill" somebody ?
He will , just waited for a moment like now with now shamefull CRU


As far as I know he has bnot published the analysis he promised. I don't read everything of course.

What I do know he has published is the claim that 89% of the stations don't meet CRN 1 or 2 requirements. And what was promised was an analysis showing how the temperature series should look if was based on only the good stations. However the analysis done by a 3rd party shows that the series based on CRN 1 and 2 stations is basicaly exactly the same as the GISS analysis.

Watts comeback is 'thats cheating because you are comparing CRN 1 and 2 stations to adjusted values. But that is exactly the point - to compare to the adjusted time series and show that th adjustments are working exactly as they are supposed to.
Posted by: adon

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 24/11/2009 16:53

Now we are all told that our climate will be hotter, drier and all around more difficult for us. SAYS WHO????? Even if our climate warms, who says that this would not result in a stronger, more consistant monsoon and therfor more moisture available to the interior for storms and rain events? We all know how unreliable weather models can be and they are dealing with known values(or very close to it). These models are relying theories and scenerios based on temperature records that are in debate in regards to their accuracy.

Now we now how one slight difference in patterns can result in large variations the longer the runs goes on. Now I know climate models operate in a different way to weather models but they still have to use data they generate to come up with the next set of figures. This means that the same issues will be present. Now we know that we do not know everything about our climate so don't you think it's a little rich to take the data released by AGW devotees as gospel and locked in if we don't bow to their wishes????
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 24/11/2009 21:02

Says the climate researchers.

A serious concern with a warming climate is the speed with which we are warming, and the fact that the land warms faster than the oceans. The input of water vapour into the terrestrial water cycle will be governed by how hot the ocean is, and the atmospheric patterns that move water vapour from ocean to land. The loss of water vapour from our land will be governed by the how hot the land becomes, and the atmospheric patterns which move water vapour from land to ocean. Unless the atmospheric patterns change somehow to favour land, the drying effect of warming land will be faster than the moistening effect of warming ocean.

Probably the best chance of opposing this effect would be the possibility that warming land will result in increased heat low effect over land, which could increase the tendancy of water vapour to flow from ocean to land. I would expect this factor to be most significant for the monsoon, and I do believe many models predict increased monsoon rainfall.

Generally I notice that at least in Australia Spring seems to be generally drier than Autumn which I take as a hint that a warming world (at a specific temperature) generally will be drier than a cooling world (at a specific temperature). If my speculation is correct this would also mean that if we reduce CO2 emissions, it may take many lifetimes for the global temperature to cool down. But the rate of warming would go down much quicker so such a drying effect would be much more responsive to mitigation of our emissions.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 24/11/2009 21:38

Westerlies were well north of mean track all 2009.
This is not a sign of global warming...the opposite actually!...
and the current westerly cut-off low which formed near Alice Springs is certainly not a sign of global warming either!
Posted by: aerology

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 25/11/2009 06:27

The net results seen so far in the USA, seem to be increased rain fall on the lee side of the rockies, Eastern Colorado has seen an increase of 220% in rain fall over the past three years, mostly in the spring / summer allowing an actual wheat harvest more often, and an increase in grazing quality.

The net effect extends from North Dakota down to western Texas.
The main meridial flow patterns globally, are driven by the North to South lunar declinational tides, which distributes the heat and moisture from the tropical oceans to the mid latitude land masses.

These main driving forces are not understood, by the mainstream, nor incorporated into the models for either weather forecasting or the climate models, as a result they break down in 7 to 10 days, as the tide turns, and the inertia the models run on is reversed, in reality.

Until the mainstream models incorporate the 2nd strongest forcing mechanism (sun come first) as part of the process to be considered, they will make little progress, beyond a week. The addition of increased sea/land temperature gradient, appears to me to just intensify the NW quadrant of the storm precipitation. (South East In your half of the world)

The angle of the 18.6 year Mn lunar declination cycle peaked in 2006 at ~28.5degrees, as it is decreasing again the atmosphere is becoming more turbulent in this phase, (accounting for the drop in Hurricanes in 2006 and 2007, from the 2005 peak) with the ebb of the atmosphere back from the poles toward the equator, it will result in dryer air masses in the mid-latitudes of the world. This is a natural cycle and has nothing to do with CO2 levels.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 25/11/2009 07:31

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
Westerlies were well north of mean track all 2009.
This is not a sign of global warming...the opposite actually!


Do you have evidence of this?



This shows winds last 12 months and my interpretation is that westerlies have been further north than normal around West Australia and Indian ocean, and further south around Africa, so probably about average overall. Of course there are probably more accurate ways to measure this factor...

Also rain in the last 12 months for South Australia hasn't been too far off average:



It wouldn't surprise me if some people's expectations of rain in the southern part of the continent have been lowered enough during the recent drying trend that they may perceive the current rainfall as unusually high.

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)

...and the current westerly cut-off low which formed near Alice Springs is certainly not a sign of global warming either!


Why? My understanding is that AGW is reducing the overall temperature gradients from equator to pole. This should weaken the forces that tend to focus weather at a particular lattitude, and we should expect to see more unusual loops and diversions of the jetstreams from their normal path, and an increase in upper level cut off lows.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 26/11/2009 23:00

Recently there was quite a hoo haa over a paper that purported to show that the number of high temperature records had increased and this was due to global warming.
Here is a paper from Dr Richard Keen of the University of Colorado, courtesy of Icecap

More Critique Of NCAR Cherry Picking Temperature Record Study
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/11/2009 08:06

You can clearly see how the low pressure westerly area has been pushed well north by this one Mike on the anomoly pressure chart at the bottom.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/11/2009 08:14

The chart they show for the Global temperature extreme trend is based on the wikipedia entry which lists the hottest and coldest temperature on each continent. I would never expect to see a trend in a dataset containing 7 extreme highs and 7 extreme lows.

As for the original NCAR temperature record study I didn't care for that either. The extremes in a temperature record are a very small set of the overall record, and at least in the datasets I work with the extremes tend to have a much higher rate of errors. Perhaps the work that climatatologists such as Blair do to check extremes may make it different for climate?

I'm much more iterested in what the average figures say.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/11/2009 08:17

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
You can clearly see how the low pressure westerly area has been pushed well north by this one Mike on the anomoly pressure chart at the bottom.


No I can't as the low pressure anomalies are in he high pressure belt. That chart shows the low pressure belt and high pressure belt have both been weaker than normal but doesn't say much about position. Of course I believe that the low pressure belt is normally supposed to be further north when it is weaker...
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/11/2009 08:41

Well you can't see with blinkered eyes, no that is correct. The strong westerlies blowing most of late Autumn to mid Spring 2009 must not have occurred!...And the AAO well north of normal most of the year, well yes that must be an error! Oh well, I try! Not worth replying really, look at charts, one sees one thing, the other sees another all biased towards one's point of view. No point in continuing this one Mike. I can see clearly what I can see, you can see whatever you can see, and never the twain shall meet! It is quite funny really laugh
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/11/2009 12:51

Again Bob Tisdale in his blog Climate Observations which for the most part concentrates on Ocean SST's and the all important to the global climate, the Ocean heat content has a post here, entitled;

More Detail On The Multiyear Aftereffects Of ENSO - Part 2 – La Nina Events Recharge The Heat Released By El Nino Events AND...

This post deals with the loss of ocean heat during an El Nino and the replacement of that heat through solar radiation due to the relatively clear skies during episodes of La Nina.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/11/2009 17:57

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
Well you can't see with blinkered eyes, no that is correct. The strong westerlies blowing most of late Autumn to mid Spring 2009 must not have occurred!...And the AAO well north of normal most of the year, well yes that must be an error! Oh well, I try! Not worth replying really, look at charts, one sees one thing, the other sees another all biased towards one's point of view. No point in continuing this one Mike. I can see clearly what I can see, you can see whatever you can see, and never the twain shall meet! It is quite funny really laugh


Actually the Antarctic Oscillation index shows postive for half the year and negative the other half, so roughly normal if averaged out.

So who is the one seeing only what they want to see?

Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/11/2009 18:04

Originally Posted By: ROM
Again Bob Tisdale in his blog Climate Observations which for the most part concentrates on Ocean SST's and the all important to the global climate, the Ocean heat content has a post here, entitled;

More Detail On The Multiyear Aftereffects Of ENSO - Part 2 – La Nina Events Recharge The Heat Released By El Nino Events AND...

This post deals with the loss of ocean heat during an El Nino and the replacement of that heat through solar radiation due to the relatively clear skies during episodes of La Nina.


Bob's theory has a serious flaw. He states that each time we have a large El Nino the temperature steps up and the heat is not released. Of course once we have had enough large el ninos the oceans will boil into space, unless the heat is somehow released.

According to the recharge oscillator theory, generally an El Nino causes a release of heat, as a lot of warm water buried deep in the western warm pool is spread out across the pacific and is able to radiate this heat into space. Then during a la nina the cooler surface allows the deep ocean to accumulate heat and rebuild subsurface heat. In his latest post Bob appeals to the accumulation of heat during a la nina phase, without realising the implications of this theory are that a large El Nino will result in an overall loss of heat, totally opposite to his theory of a step up.

I suspect that a series of weak El Nino years such as in the 90s and again in the 00s would allow a little extra ocean heat to escape into space, balancing the warming effect of CO2, and possibly accounting for the apparent flat trends in the 90s and again in the 00s. If this is the way ENSO and global temps are interacting then I would expect another step up in temps after the recent two years of cool ENSO conditions. We should be soon seeing a significant step up in ocean heat content and sea levels, although I think latest stats don't show this so it might be a busted theory.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 30/11/2009 12:28

If you bother to put a trend line in Mike the AAO goes up to around 1998 and nthen down as per global temps tendency.
My own Australian AAO does it even more strongly.
And I look all the time at daily AAO values, and that monthly graph never shows all the shorter term interesting trends that I was talking about at times.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 30/11/2009 20:24

With the way this northern winter is unfolding it seems that there are only small pockets at the 2 cold regions that have been averaging near normal. That is far eastern Russia and NE Canada, in these regions although the summer was warmer than normal and early autumn also, now late autumn and winter seems to be running at average. I am also noticing that much larger than normal regions of the northern hemisphere are failing to cool as they should with the approaching winter. Most regions you look at the data you find temps continue to run well above average. The global warming is almost like a pool that is filling leaving smaller and smaller pockets of normal temps behind. I have always thought that the regions of the world with the ideal radiation heat loss would still cool to the same temperature over the winter even if it may take some days/weeks longer to happen even with greatly increased CO2 levels. However I am no longer sure if these regions could end up getting swallowed up by the rising tide of global warming. Eventually the pockets of cold could be too small and the regions of warmth around them too great and they too could start to disappear.

I do have this gut sinking feeling from all the observations around the world that global warming will eventually surely but slowly strangle this planet. It may take a while for it to happen but it will happen eventually unless we immediately stop raising CO2 levels and also immediately start reducing the population.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 30/11/2009 20:46

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)

And I look all the time at daily AAO values, and that monthly graph never shows all the shorter term interesting trends that I was talking about at times.


Actually your original contention was that the northerlies have been further north than normal for all of the year 2009. To quote: 'Westerlies were well north of mean track all 2009.' First you comment on my inability to see what you think is clearly visible in the anomaly charts and make reference to the postive AAO. I then look up the AAO and point out that it has been positve for half the year and negative for the other half. And now you are responding by saying you really meant daily or shorter term interesting trends or whatever it is that your are actually talking about at times.

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
If you bother to put a trend line in Mike the AAO goes up to around 1998 and nthen down as per global temps tendency.
My own Australian AAO does it even more strongly.


I did look at the trends and there is certainly nothing at all distinctive about 1998. 1998 to now is slightly down (same as global temp), but 2002 to now is slightly up (opposite to global temp)

What I did notice is that for the entire data set there is almost no trend whatsoever. The trend is slightly positive, but removing only four years of data can make it negative so the trend is certainly not significant. In contrast this definition (link) of the AAO shows a strong increasing trend.

I'm not sure if the diference is because the first is based on 700hp heights, and the second is sea level pressure, or whether the first was detrended and I couldn't figure that out from the somewhat technical definition (link).
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 30/11/2009 22:06

E.M.Smith in his Chiefio blog has been messing around over a period with some coding on the GISStemp and UHCN data so here are a few selected quotes which I think reflect his overall impressions.
If you doubt my selections or the my conclusions that I believe E.M.Smith is pointing to then try reading the Chiefio post for yourself..

Below are the relevant quotes;

Not exactly GIStemp, but in “characterizing the data” for the GHCN input, I’ve found that all the “warming signal” is carried in the winter months. The summer months do not warm. That can not be caused by CO2.

So GIStemp thinks it’s getting warmer, but only in the winter! I can live with that! At this point I think it’s mostly in the data, but further dredging around is needed to confirm that.

According to this, we’ve warmed up 4.5C since 1881 and the 1971 record above was a full 2.7C warmer than 1881. But I thought we were freezing in 1971 and a new ice age was forecast?!

Further, the “warming signal” arrives coincident with the arrival of large numbers of new thermometers. When you look at the longest lived cohort, those over about 100 years lifetime, there is no warming signal present in the data to speak of. When you look at the much shorter lived cohorts, you find a very strong warming signal, especially in the winter months. On further inspection of the data it looks like a lot of thermometers “arrived” at places with low latitudes AND at airports (newly built as the “jet age” arrived).

Hmmm…. A bit further pondering….
Does anyone have a graph of S.H. thermometer growth over time? It would be a bit of a “hoot” if the “Global Warming” all came down to more thermometers being put in The Empire in Africa, Australia, et. al. then to Soviet Union dropping SIberia out in large part…
Could GW all just be where in the world is Carmen Sandiego’s Thermometer?
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 30/11/2009 22:54

Originally Posted By: ROM
E.M.Smith in his Chiefio blog has been messing around over a period with some coding on the GISStemp and UHCN data so here are a few selected quotes which I think reflect his overall impressions.
If you doubt my selections or the my conclusions that I believe E.M.Smith is pointing to then try reading the Chiefio post for yourself..

Below are the relevant quotes;

Not exactly GIStemp, but in “characterizing the data” for the GHCN input, I’ve found that all the “warming signal” is carried in the winter months. The summer months do not warm. That can not be caused by CO2.

So GIStemp thinks it’s getting warmer, but only in the winter! I can live with that! At this point I think it’s mostly in the data, but further dredging around is needed to confirm that.

According to this, we’ve warmed up 4.5C since 1881 and the 1971 record above was a full 2.7C warmer than 1881. But I thought we were freezing in 1971 and a new ice age was forecast?!

Further, the “warming signal” arrives coincident with the arrival of large numbers of new thermometers. When you look at the longest lived cohort, those over about 100 years lifetime, there is no warming signal present in the data to speak of. When you look at the much shorter lived cohorts, you find a very strong warming signal, especially in the winter months. On further inspection of the data it looks like a lot of thermometers “arrived” at places with low latitudes AND at airports (newly built as the “jet age” arrived).

Hmmm…. A bit further pondering….
Does anyone have a graph of S.H. thermometer growth over time? It would be a bit of a “hoot” if the “Global Warming” all came down to more thermometers being put in The Empire in Africa, Australia, et. al. then to Soviet Union dropping SIberia out in large part…
Could GW all just be where in the world is Carmen Sandiego’s Thermometer?


E.M. Smith does not actualy analyse the GISS temp series. He analyse the raw data that is used to calculate the GISS temperature data, and when he does he uses different calculations to what GISS uses. As GISS temperature shows basically the same trend in all four seasons, it is obvious that the difference between Smith's calculations and the actual GISS calculations is the cause of the supposed lack of warming in summer.



I think the fact Smith does his own calculations on the raw data, which ae nothing like the GISS calculations and then claims the results are reflective of the GISS temperture series is quite dishonest.
Posted by: Flying Binghi (2)

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2009 00:15

Interesting how it was so important for the so-called climate scientists that the medieval warm period had to be removed from the historical temperature records. So important that corruption was committed to remove the medieval warm period from the climate record. What we got were the famous, and corrupt, IPCC Hockey stick graph....

The medieval warm period were warmer than today.

Looking back over two thousand years of temperature records that include the medieval warm period, i see that today's global temperatures are nothing out of the ordinary.

It seems to be an accepted fact that the world came out of a little Ice Age in the mid 1800's. The planets average temperature appears to be on a warming up swing since the Ice Age. Seeing as the medieval warm period which preceded the mini ice age was warmer than today, then the expectation is we gunna get warmer yet.

Seems to me that if it gets warmer in the next year or so, or cooler, its all the same old stuff, i.e. natural climate change.

The problem now for the carbon profiteers is that without the hockey stick graph they have no way of showing today's planetary temperature is anything out of the ordinary.









.
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2009 02:40

Quote:
I think the fact Smith does his own calculations on the raw data, which ae nothing like the GISS calculations and then claims the results are reflective of the GISS temperture series is quite dishonest.


Mabey it's just that he does not massage the RAW data in the same way but takes a more Honest and independent approach to the Data.

Quote:
When you look at the longest lived cohort, those over about 100 years lifetime, there is no warming signal present in the data to speak of.


At least this is possible, the raw data is what the "science" is based upon as are the Models that we all hear so much about, which seem tho to be unable to predict the past (despite being based on observation) reliably let alone the future.
There are many examples of of the interpretation of data by individuals not matching up with the "major" organisations the above is but one example, here is another http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/#more-13373

I can provide lots more if you like such as Manns latest peer reviewed paper where he has inverted the findings of sediment layers http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/told-ya-so-more-upside-down-mann-in-his-latest-paper/ despite this being brought to his attention before the paper was even submitted.

Now I know we can to and fro about the quality and qualifications of those who interpret the data, and the processes used to come the conclusions that they find after analysing the data but in the end it comes down to the

science

science (sns)
The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation. Science makes use of the scientific method, which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms or modifies the hypothesis. See Note at hypothesis.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science

Testing the hypothesis seems to be a "major" problem in the major organisations these days, even tho it is based on the Raw Data, Does that mean that the independent researcher is wrong? Or that the major organisation is wrong?.

Or does it just mean that the SCIENCE is not settled yet?

When I look at the history of science it strikes me that all of the big issues we recognise today as Fact's come from people that were out there on the fringe of "science" as it was recognised in their day and age, Copernicus, Galileo,Newton, Edison, Einstein, Darwin were all ridiculed in one way or another for not conforming to the CONSENSUS of their time .

But their Science was able to be replicated based on their raw data because it was science. And today we accept them as characters of Genius rather than Skeptics , Deniers, Blasphemers or Idiots as they were described in their day.

It was the replication of their theorys that now see them for the Genius' that they were, and that replication was based on their raw data.
Not on some maladjusted data thrown into a computer that was coded to massage results that still could not get it right anyway based on observational data.

But even these people have been subject to science and some of their theorys have been proven wrong but that is SCIENCE.

The raw data is the base of it, the observation, (I see this) The interpretation (I think because), The theory is next (of this), Hypotheses (then try it out) is the testing of seeing and thinking and trying, to emulate what you see and think and then test it.
If it works then try it again and test it, if it works again get someone else to do it by themselves based on your observations and test it again... Viola it works, get even more peole to check it out.... well look at that it still works. It must be so based on todays SCIENCE.

To me this is the problem of todays scinece when it comes to the Climate, it is a closed shop, due to the influence of policy and funding and the base of major organisations dictating what science is, One example is the CSIRO, reduced funding since the mid 90's has led to the CSIRO seeking funding from elswhere.

Quote:
Funding of CSIRO from several Government departments will reduce the flexibility of the organisation and the Government to change research priorities in keeping with altered national needs and opportunities. There is the danger of a much reduced appropriation funding for CSIRO because of the diversion of resources to fund departmental initiatives unrelated to research needs.

Quote:
The Academy indicated in its submission that the Government should enunciate an overall policy for R&D and set broad national priorities, aligned to national goals and priorities, but the selection of research programs and projects should be determined by researchers in consultation with users.

An appropriately structured CSIRO Board is far preferable to yet another layer determining CSIRO policy and priorities. There are too many layers already for the most efficient and effective operation of CSIRO and the morale of the creative scientists has declined.

http://www.science.org.au/reports/resptoic.htm


The fact is that the CSIRO has become more angled on climate change than anything else, due to funding priority's, but what was it set up for?

Raw data is the basis of the apparent climate change due to AGW
but it is raw data that was fed into computor models, then it was adjusted to account for god knows what , then it was manipulated to account for who knows what, then it formed the basis of many other models that predict the future of our planet via the IPCC.
It is also the same raw data that individuals are not finding the same results from, infact they are finding results that do not agree in any way with the IPCC reports or findings. Some of theses people are the very same people that the IPCC uses to support their findings.

Is it real science? can the result's be replicated individually? is the base code data still their? the answer apparently is NOwe lost it...............

WELL? is there still a consensus? UM ERR YEAH... Based on the scientific consensus um ... yeah. based on the base data....UM oh that ... we lost it somewhere.

surreal as it seems that is what we get...The baseline data that the whole AGW theory is based on is gone. you cant test it, analyse it , replicate it cause we lost it...

Is that science? you would think that something so imprtant to the welfare of the world would at least be kept in archives... But um err no sorry we lost that bit...

A world class institution, the cradle of AGW has lost the baseline data for AGW climate change ???


Mike I would like to know your opinion of the apparent loss of the RAW data that has gone missing from EAU/CRU, is it important? does it matter?
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2009 08:17

Originally Posted By: marakai
[quote]
Raw data is the basis of the apparent climate change due to AGW
but it is raw data that was fed into computor models, then it was adjusted to account for god knows what , then it was manipulated to account for who knows what, then it formed the basis of many other models that predict the future of our planet via the IPCC.
It is also the same raw data that individuals are not finding the same results from, infact they are finding results that do not agree in any way with the IPCC reports or findings. Some of theses people are the very same people that the IPCC uses to support their findings.


So your argument is that because you have no idea what the adjustments are for, the adjustments must be wrong? That is called argument from ignorance.

Originally Posted By: marakai
[quote]
A world class institution, the cradle of AGW has lost the baseline data for AGW climate change ???

Mike I would like to know your opinion of the apparent loss of the RAW data that has gone missing from EAU/CRU, is it important? does it matter?


I would be concerned about the allegations if I was a member of that institution, or a taxpayer funding that institute. Being neither I am happy to ignore CRU and simply use GISS or UAh data to measure global warming with.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2009 08:25

Originally Posted By: Flying Binghi (2)
Interesting how it was so important for the so-called climate scientists that the medieval warm period had to be removed from the historical temperature records. So important that corruption was committed to remove the medieval warm period from the climate record. What we got were the famous, and corrupt, IPCC Hockey stick graph....

The medieval warm period were warmer than today.

Looking back over two thousand years of temperature records that include the medieval warm period, i see that today's global temperatures are nothing out of the ordinary.

It seems to be an accepted fact that the world came out of a little Ice Age in the mid 1800's. The planets average temperature appears to be on a warming up swing since the Ice Age. Seeing as the medieval warm period which preceded the mini ice age was warmer than today, then the expectation is we gunna get warmer yet.

Seems to me that if it gets warmer in the next year or so, or cooler, its all the same old stuff, i.e. natural climate change.

The problem now for the carbon profiteers is that without the hockey stick graph they have no way of showing today's planetary temperature is anything out of the ordinary.
.


It says alot that climate denialists think that a medieval warm period could be significant enough that climate scientists would form a conspiracy to hide it. 'It got warm 1000 years ago' doesn't exactly tell us anything useful about whether Co2 will cause warming next century.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2009 08:37

It seems around here if you mention the climate work and the conclusions of any often highly qualified science trained researchers, researchers who have absolutely no vested interest in the outcome of their analysis of the climate data except to try and find the truth but who dare to disagree with the claims and the data as presented by GISS or CRU, they are either wrong, don't know what they are talking about or are just plain ignorant and dishonest!
Posted by: Anemoi

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2009 12:22

contents removed
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2009 14:13

for crying out aloud anemoi, relax a little mate, calling people names isn't called for simply because they look at all the evidence and find that it points to other causes of the beautiful warmth other than the air every animal on the planet breaths out, including you....
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2009 20:16

There is a graph somewhere, if I can find it, that shows a clear trend in the AAO up to 1998-2002, then a clear trend down Mike...anyway it is past its use by date this argument!
Posted by: aerology

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2009 22:12

Having com-posited data to make a long term USA forecast, using a large raw data set, of 22,000 stations, about 880 of which are "Primary NWS stations", of varying length, elevation, seasonal coverage on some upper elevation fire stations, and changes in density of station coverage from state to state, increases in number for awhile, then a reduction of the total, due to consolidation to conserve spending budgets. I am aware of some of the problems they at CRU allude to in the raw data sets they must have had to wade through.

Where as I am doing contour plotting of data that were recorded the same date for each map, Times 3 cycles gridded separately, then combined, I am not too picky as to how many data points I use per grid resolution of 0.1 degrees, I chose to use all the valid ones (non-9999 values, any that were less than 150 Degrees F, and more than -60 degrees F, I had to eliminate all negative precipitation values (there were a lot in the raw data), and chose to not use Trace amounts less than 0.1" as agriculturally insignificant.(to not have to deal with blending "T"'s into the numerical amounts)

The result of using the varying station density, and intermittent station data, when ever it was valid, did not cause me any problems. It only changed the resolution of the contours, better in more dense areas of record, and better in the summer when it was inhabited. Since I was not setting up a uniform grid coverage to form a reference average, it does not matter to my application, if the coverage is better or worse from area to area.
results are viewable at;

http://www.aerology.com/national.aspx

From reading the Harry_read_me file comments it seems they were having a problem selecting long term records of consistent length, and weeding out errors in the raw data set, while at the same time selecting the stations that fit their "EXPECTED" temp response and still keep an evenly spaced number of stations per grid. They talk of "INFILLING" where there are large distances between data stations, this they did at their "objective discretion", where I just left the coverage slim as it was, by not infilling, and left the area be weak in it's ability to forecast subtle changes from area to area, and day to day.

CRU and GISS had to have some plan to regulate the density of coverage and infilling to represent a true average/unit of surface area, whether they used this as an opportunity to "adjust" the final result, will not affect the original complete set of raw data. The problem we have is that the first set of adjusted data, trimmed of all "Problematic data and irregularly spaced stations, and infilled data points" when converted to a CSV file or other format and saved, no longer has any stations identification numbers attached to any of the data, just the Long and Lat and temperature values.

I by passed that programming problem by tabling all usable valid station data, one file for each date, for each parameter, and retaining a copy for use in forming the CSV files for each forecast date. So that it would be totally repeatable by anyone trying to do so, or in case I want to look at the individual cycles, or look for phase shifts between them as in the case of outer planet synod interferences, that shift the timing of the influx of moisture out of the tropics into the mid-latitudes.

It is a "shame / crime"? that their interim data set adjusted from the raw data set was lost. So that others cannot repeat and confirm / void? their results, this is the cost, to the truth "real science" seeks with every breath, from the shoddy work they were doing. As no matter how the data is compiled by others it will not repeat exactly again. Can you say plausible deny ability? They could have with out the release of the leaked files.

The derailing of the Peer review process, shifts the balance from deny ability to fraud of the worst kind. The application of the unlawfully "peer reviewed" screened data to the decision making process of the IPCC agenda is a crime against all mankind, and the participants should be tried as such.

To MIke et all:
to Quote; ""E.M. Smith does not actualy analyse the GISS temp series. He analyse the raw data that is used to calculate the GISS temperature data, and when he does he uses different calculations to what GISS uses. As GISS temperature shows basically the same trend in all four seasons, it is obvious that the difference between Smith's calculations and the actual GISS calculations is the cause of the supposed lack of warming in summer.""

My comment starts here again: The difference E.M. Smith sees in the raw data from the GISS is probably due to using the whole data set affected by commercial, agricultural, and residential irrigation of crops and auto watering of lawns, usually done at night. Increased use of landscaping over the years, heating and air conditioner use close to some of the raw data stations. My local measurable UHI effects are more pronounced in winter, even here in a small community of 3,000 I see a rise of 3 to 5 degrees F (more when calm) on my auto's digital thermometer as I go the 6 miles, into the town from my farm, and it drops again as I leave out the other side.

As an aside, the most effective way to abate the rapid shift from day to night temps would be to add moisture to the top soil increasing it's specific heat capacity, making it less desert like. Also increasing sodded area, mowing lawns at an increased height, 4" to 6" instead of the 2 1/2" manicured carpet look, most strive for.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2009 22:33

Climate Change E-Mails Cry Out for a National Conversation

But the CRU’s temperature data and all of the research done with it are now in question. The leaked e-mails show that the scientists at the CRU don’t know how their data was put together. CRU took individual temperature readings at individual stations and averaged the information out to produce temperature readings over larger areas. The problem comes in how they did the averaging. One of the leaked documents states that “our flagship gridded data product is produced by [a method that] renders the station counts totally meaningless” and “so, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!” There were also significant coding errors in the data. Weather stations that are claimed to exist in Canada aren’t there -- leading one memo to speculate that the stations “were even invented somewhere other than Canada!”

The computer code used to create the data the CRU has used contains programmer notes that indicate that the aggregated data were constructed to show an increase in temperatures. The programmer notes include: “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” and "Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend -- so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!" The programmers apparently had to try at least a couple of adjustments before they could get their aggregated data to show an increase in temperatures.

All this could in theory be correctable by going back and starting from scratch with the original “raw” data, but the CRU apparently threw out much of the data used to create their temperature measures. We now only have the temperature measures that they created.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/30/john-lott-climate-change-emails-obama-copenhagen/
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 02/12/2009 10:41

From Roger Pielke Snrs blog; Global Warming And Glacier Melt-Down Deb...hav L Khandekar

An excerpt from this article is below but which can be found in whole in the above link.
Quote:
Predictably, the IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri reacted angrily citing the IPCC 2007 climate change reports which asserted that the (Himalayan) glaciers are receding faster than in any other part of the world and if the present rate ( of melting) continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps even sooner is very high if the earth keeps warming at the current rate. Several other Indian scientists and glaciologists have got into the debate now with some of them criticizing the Indian Government with an ostrich-like attitude in the face of impending disaster.

What is the reality? Let us take a closer look:

First, where did this number 2035 (the year when glaciers could vanish) come from?

According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996, The future of glaciers under the expected climate warming, 61-66, in Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., 1996, Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 1. UNESCO, Paris (IHP-IV Project H-4.1). 78p estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493!

So we have a raging debate about impending glacier melt-down because of sloppiness of some IPCC authors! Further, according to Kotlyakov, the present glacier area of some 500,000 km2 could shrink to 100,000 km2 and this could happen NOT in 2035 but in 2350, if the current rate of warming continues. Also this estimated glacier area and its shrinkage does not include internal drainage basin of central Asia with an estimated area of some 40,000 km2 .

The article lays to rest the outlandish and demonstrably false claims that the Himalayan Glaciers will be gone by 2035 and all because somebody in the IPCC can't even read the date of 2350 correctly but still goes on to print this in the IPCC report.
Says still more about the sheer sloppiness and corruption of the science supposedly backing the claims of catastrophic global warming.

And that is IF global warming is actually a real long term phenomena and not just another cyclic phase in the global climate and IF the warming continues at the same rate as the pre mid 1990's, not forgetting that even Trenberth from CRU in the e-mails was lamenting that not being able to account for the the last decade of cooling was a "travesty"
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 02/12/2009 11:42

Originally Posted By: ROM
From Roger Pielke Snrs blog; Global Warming And Glacier Melt-Down Deb...hav L Khandekar

An excerpt from this article is below but which can be found in whole in the above link.
Quote:
Predictably, the IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri reacted angrily citing the IPCC 2007 climate change reports which asserted that the (Himalayan) glaciers are receding faster than in any other part of the world and if the present rate ( of melting) continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps even sooner is very high if the earth keeps warming at the current rate. Several other Indian scientists and glaciologists have got into the debate now with some of them criticizing the Indian Government with an ostrich-like attitude in the face of impending disaster.

What is the reality? Let us take a closer look:

First, where did this number 2035 (the year when glaciers could vanish) come from?

According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996, The future of glaciers under the expected climate warming, 61-66, in Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., 1996, Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 1. UNESCO, Paris (IHP-IV Project H-4.1). 78p estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493!

So we have a raging debate about impending glacier melt-down because of sloppiness of some IPCC authors! Further, according to Kotlyakov, the present glacier area of some 500,000 km2 could shrink to 100,000 km2 and this could happen NOT in 2035 but in 2350, if the current rate of warming continues. Also this estimated glacier area and its shrinkage does not include internal drainage basin of central Asia with an estimated area of some 40,000 km2 .

The article lays to rest the outlandish and demonstrably false claims that the Himalayan Glaciers will be gone by 2035 and all because somebody in the IPCC can't even read the date of 2350 correctly but still goes on to print this in the IPCC report.
Says still more about the sheer sloppiness and corruption of the science supposedly backing the claims of catastrophic global warming.

And that is IF global warming is actually a real long term phenomena and not just another cyclic phase in the global climate and IF the warming continues at the same rate as the pre mid 1990's, not forgetting that even Trenberth from CRU in the e-mails was lamenting that not being able to account for the the last decade of cooling was a "travesty"


I looked up page 493 of the WG report, and IPPC reference WWF (WorldWildlife Fund), 2005 as the source for the statement that Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2035. This report does clearly state 2035 as the year that the glaciers will disapper by. So the IPCC authors very definitely did not misread the date, and Roger's accusation is clearly false.

But did perhaps the complier of WWF report misread the date? They reference the 'Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology' as the source for this date. Unfortunately although a few references to this working group exist on the internet, I cannot find any articles, so I would guess the working group definitely existed, but the articles are probably only in paper form. All the news releases I read on the internet that discuss the 2035 melt date reference Professor Hasnain from India who was the Chairman of this working group as the source for this claim, so the IPCC did not ignite this debate with their 2007 report, it was ignited by Hasnain.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 02/12/2009 13:09

"The degradation of the extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be apparent in rising ocean
level already by the year 2050, and there will be a drastic rise of the ocean thereafter caused
by the deglaciation-derived runoff (see Table 11 ). This period will last from 200 to 300
years. The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates—
its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2350."
2350 IS THERE in the article at
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001065/106523e.pdf


Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 02/12/2009 14:07

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
"The degradation of the extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be apparent in rising ocean
level already by the year 2050, and there will be a drastic rise of the ocean thereafter caused
by the deglaciation-derived runoff (see Table 11 ). This period will last from 200 to 300
years. The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates—
its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2350."
2350 IS THERE in the article at
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001065/106523e.pdf




Yes, but the IPCC referenced a different document that quite clearly says 2035, so the IPCC clearly did not make a mistake in misreading 2350 as 2035.

I'm not stating that the 2035 is a better or worse date than 2350, that would be a different argument.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 02/12/2009 15:39

From the private and independent Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute via WUWT.

Oh snap! CO2 causes ocean critters to build more shells

A couple of quotes and the obligatory reference to global warming are here but as we are seeing everywhere, follow the money trail.
To get a crack at the grant money, the project no doubt was put up as a project to assess the effects of higher levels of CO2 on ocean acidification and the consequent effects on structure of the calcium carbonate exoskeletons of sea creatures.

A guaranteed way of getting funds though maybe not for that much longer!

Quote:
Organisms displaying such improvement also included calcifying red and green algae, limpets and temperate urchins. Mussels showed no effect.

“We were surprised that some organisms didn’t behave in the way we expected under elevated CO2,” said Anne L. Cohen, a research specialist at WHOI and one of the study’s co-authors. “What was really interesting was that some of the creatures, the coral, the hard clam and the lobster, for example, didn’t seem to care about CO2 until it was higher than about 1,000 parts per million [ppm].” Current atmospheric CO2 levels are about 380 ppm, she said. Above this level, calcification was reduced in the coral and the hard clam, but elevated in the lobster

“Some organisms were very sensitive,” Cohen said, “some that have commercial value. But there were a couple that didn’t respond to CO2 or didn’t respond till it was sky-high—about 2,800 parts per million. We’re not expecting to see that [CO2 level] anytime soon.”

The researchers caution, however, that the findings—and acidification’s overall impact—may be more complex than it appears. For example, Cohen says that available food and nutrients such as nitrates, phosphates and iron may help dictate how some organisms respond to carbon dioxide.

“We know that nutrients can be very important,” she says. “We have found that corals for example, that have plenty of food and nutrients can be less sensitive” to CO2. “In this study, the organisms were well fed and we didn’t constrain the nutrient levels.


Quote:
“I wouldn’t make any predictions based on these results. What these results indicate to us is that the organism response to elevated CO2 levels is complex and we now need to go back and study each organism in detail.”


Or is that last bit; send more money!

OK, give them the benefit of the doubt.
Honesty, pragmatism and reality maybe are setting in and maybe some real science is being done by this group without the overt AGW propaganda that accompanies so much of what passes for science these days
And that disaster scenario where all life is exterminated doesn't even show up! drat!
Posted by: Flying Binghi (2)

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 03/12/2009 22:31

Quote:
It says alot that climate denialists think that a medieval warm period could be significant enough that climate scientists would form a conspiracy to hide it. 'It got warm 1000 years ago' doesn't exactly tell us anything useful about whether Co2 will cause warming next century


Interesting answer Mike Hauber ... first i get insulted via a reference to the Holocaust, then apparently we have a conspiracy followed by a fluff answer.....yep, good one.

If the medieval warm period is not "anything useful" then why pray-tell did the IPCC have the infamous hockey stick graph record going back two thousand years and with the well known, warmer than today, MWP excluded ?

With the warmer than today MWP (and warm Roman period) back in its rightful place, the cooler temperatures of today are nothing out of the ordinary... that be a BIG problem for the warming hysterics.






.
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 03/12/2009 23:03

Dont take it to heart FB(2), if your world is crumbling around you it is human nature to lash out and become irrational...

The MWP was well established in many Journals till the alarmanista got hold of it and tried to abolish / ignore it but at the same time provided the evidence themselves that it did in fact exist.
RE: fossilised tree stumps well above the current tree line.

That old saying that the Victors write the history may well be true huh?

Anyways I found this nice little toy on Spaceweather I wanted to share
http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/sunspotplotter.htm?PHPSESSID=98nu533t13j6cj7kfv2166rqr6

Check out the current month/year compared to even the 1850's. BRRRR
Posted by: mobihci

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/12/2009 03:28

no doubt the hockey stick will survive and be presented many times over in this upcoming conference. from jo novas site-

Posted by: RC

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/12/2009 08:16

Well worth the watch http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200912/r480297_2441634.asx
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/12/2009 21:14

Great video RC its great to have plain talking and truthful politicians like Barnaby Joyce and Tony Abott for a change...a breath of fresh air!
Posted by: aerology

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 05/12/2009 01:57

What to do now when the bull dust blows over?
I suggest we start by asking more questions, and finding additional answers to compare, to give us a greater gathering of knowledge, to evaluate the hypothesis skeptically, while figuring out better questions, to ask for the next set of trials.

Diversity of thought into additional areas of knowledge, gives a more rounded vision, allowing for the formation of more complex answers, and resultant better focused questions. If you can then present data, in a format that is visual enough, that it shows the balancing of several forces at work, as they really do, it would make finding the solution easier.

From a viewpoint of how the assemblage of parts seamlessly fits together,the only thing you have to do, is to watch the (short but seemingly) endless stream of (every 15 minute) infrared and/or vapor satellite photos animated, (after fixing the jumping around of the originals, due to lack of foresight, that they might be useful some day), and synchronized by 27.32 days periods, to see the repeating cycles.

To set up five tiled windows, in the first show day #1 through #27 sequentially, then as they continue on in the same stream, the cycle of the first 27 days continues anew in window #2, synchronized by Lunar declination to #1. Till they spill over into window #3 stepping in phase with the other two, #4 the same idea gives you the four basic patterns of the Rossby wave 109.3 day cycle, of global circulation, that then repeat but seasonally shifted.

In window #5 then would be the first repeat of window #1 in the same phase of the same pattern, and should look a lot like window #1. As the progression through the total series, proceeds, when you get 6558 days into the five stacks, a 6th window opens and the original day #1 in window #1 opens as #1 in window #6. As the series progresses on, real data can be viewed, in the real interactions going on.

This would give you a look into the cyclic pattern that develops from the repetitive interaction of the inner planets, and tidal effects, caused by the Lunar declination, phase, perigee/ apogee cycles.

By adding a sliding ball, vertically moving up and down a +-30 degree scale bar (referenced from the Equator), on the side of each tile space, that shows the plot of the current Lunar declination for the time of each frame. Which will allow you to see the shifts in the Lunar declinational angle's effects, as the 18.6 Mn signal progresses.

By adding another slide bar of +-30 degrees (with the heliocentric synod conjunction with Earth, as the zero reference), at the top, of each tile you could view each outer planet as we pass them, as color coded discs labeled, J, S,U, N, shifting from left to right. From viewing this progression of the outer planets, the merit of their influences, can then be seen in the additional surges in ion flux as they go by. You can watch the changes in the normal background, of the global circulation driven by the moon and inner planets, affected by the outer planets.

By adding in the surface maps for the past historic temperatures, dew points, precipitation, types, and amounts, as overlays onto the IR/VAPOR photos, the patterns will be abundantly clear to 10 year old school kids. At the same time, generating a good long term forecast, set of analogs to base the models upon.

Once the amount of additional angular momentum, and the process of it's coming and goings can be clearly seen, it can then be measured, it's effects calculated, and incorporated into the climate models, as a real quantized feedback. thereby giving us a much better picture, of the interactions, of all of the parts of the puzzle.

All of the necessary data is in the archives, and free to use, to those that have the where with all, to assemble the real truth, be it inconvenient or not. I will probably spend the rest of my life, trying to get it done alone, out of my own funds, as I have done so far.

For application in Quake sightings, and subsequent formulating hypothesis and developing forecast parameters, you could substitute, or add (if your video resolutions is good enough), intensity quantified dots on the surface of occurring quakes (play with color coded shift and fade out time, to see time shifts etc.) and a corresponding moving open circle, showing the moving location of the earth/moon center line.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 05/12/2009 08:40

Aerology thanks very much for all the posts, but I would suggest with all the knowledge you appear to have, you are posting way above anyone elses grasp of what you are doing. You would need to start back at square one and state the simple basics as to a lot of schoolies to lead us all through what you are saying and doing. You obviously know well what you are saying, but to us (and I speak on behalf of all or most I would think anyway) you are throwing us in the deep end, without us knowing the first more basic principles of what you are saying, ie what does "Lunar declinational angle's effects' do to the weather, and what do all these do to the weather, "interaction of the inner planets, and tidal effects, caused by the Lunar declination, phase, perigee/ apogee cycles", and what does this do "angular momentum", and what do these do "surges in magnetic flux seen in the solar wind from the viewpoint of the effects these changes in global static/ionic charges", "a surge in charge in the global homopolar generated static pole to equator fields, and reflective changes in the Earth's angular momentum and LOD", etc. While this is all interesting, most of likely have not a clue what these are, and especially what their effects on the weather and climate are? You will need to gho back to grade 1 level and bring us slowly up to speed if you are going to help us to understand just what your theories are. I would like to know, but I am having great trouble going through the posts to get to first base, sorry?
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 05/12/2009 12:09

Ditto on that BD, It is really very interesting , I have read all I could and think Ive got a loose grasp on it,some graphics would be good, and a forecast for the QLD wet season would be great as well richard.
Posted by: mobihci

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/12/2009 13:48

he is looking at cycles and going backwards to form conclusions, which is fine considering there is a not a great deal known about the interaction with the imf (interplanetary magnetic field).

what is needed though is the mechanism through which it functions. eg a geomagnetic storm caused by a large solar flare will produce thousands of times higher induced currents or whatever you want to look at re interactions, yet these storms are not related to earth weather systems. this is the extreme but an example of how unstable the imf is. not only does the imf swing up and down with the magnetic poles of the sun, it also speeds up and slows down due to the fact that the imf is the plasmas field, not the suns.

ropes do couple those planets that do have their own field to the sun, but venus, mars and the moon can only hope to influence the imf through their mass, not the mass composition reacting with the field. ie their gravity will alter our gravity, but their field should not in any way alter ours. though the moon is close enough to cover us at times, and also we cover it and create some very interesting interactions largely ignored.

but it is ignored because of that first observation that even extreme events interacting with our magnetic field dont seem to affect weather patterns, but there are studies out there-

http://cdaw.gsfc.nasa.gov/geomag_cdaw/data/cdaw3/mlalgravitywave/IJRSPMarch05.doc

"
One aspect of geomagnetic / weather relationship that shows a certain degree of coherence between studies is the timing of the effects. In the vast majority of studies, the lower atmosphere responds to a geomagnetic disturbance with seven days. Vovk et al. (2000) noted that the delay between Forbush decrease events and responses in Antaractic temperature, pressure, and wind, could be approximated by a quasi – exponential curve. Therefore, it is possible that the actual delay between geomagnetic activity and the associated atmospheric response is a function of the magnitude of the geomagnetic event. However, with some exceptions, Stening, 1994 and Tinsley and Deen, 1991, found significant response at larger time lag intervals"

etc
Posted by: aerology

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/12/2009 14:56

What to do now, when the bull dust blows over? Have expanded the details of the process....Hope this helps some..(More in the middle like a double stuff Oreo)

I suggest we start by asking more questions, and finding additional answers to compare, to give us a greater gathering of knowledge, to evaluate the hypothesis skeptically, while figuring out better questions, to ask for the next set of trials.

Diversity of thought into additional areas of knowledge, gives a more rounded vision, allowing for the formation of more complex answers, and resultant better focused questions. If you can then present data, in a format that is visual enough, that it shows the balancing of several forces at work, as they really do, it would make finding the solution easier.

If we start with the studies of what works in climate forecasting, the Milankavitch cycles, and expand on what has turned out to be true about solar cycles according to Theodor Landscheidt, ( the only one to correctly forecast the long solar minimum we are passing through). The evidence points to the natural variability factors as being the effects of the rotation or the galaxy and the swirl imparted to the local area of the spiral arm we seem to reside in (Milankavich), and by the inertial dampening of the planets effects on the barycenter of the solar system, moves the sun's center of mass around as it tries to stay magnetically and gravitationally centered in the swirling magnetic fields, plasma, and dust clouds, and other stars joining us in this dance to the celestial music as it were.

(Landscheidt) Found the driving forces of the Inertial dampening of the system and defined it to the point of predictability, it only seems that that the next steps would be to analyze the effects of the interactions of the Inner planets, which have a rhythmic pattern to their orbital relationships, and their relations to the weather patterns they share. Most good discoveries come from the individuals who seek the truth with out consideration for the limited vision of the thundering herd mentality.

With climategate we have seen the latest stampede, of hurried angst ridden, fear mongering, driving of the ignorant sheep of the world away from the truth and into the pens. By the politically minded "think they know what the rest of us need crowd," that are controlling the funds, research orientation, and imposing their goals upon the process, to achieve profits as they see fit, to stay in power.

I have quietly undertaken the study of the relationships between the interactions of the Sun's magnetic fields borne on the solar wind, and it's interactions with the Earth's weather patterns to the point I have found the cyclic patterns of the shorter decade durations, that show up as the natural background variances in the climate RAW data sets. Starting with the history of research into planetary motions and the Lunar declination,(the Earth / Moon system's response to the rotation of the magnetic poles of the sun. In order to find a natural analog to the patterns in the weather there were several things I had to consider.

The results of the analog cyclic pattern I discovered repeat with in a complex pattern of Inner planet harmonics, and outer planet longer term interferences that come round to the 172 year pattern Landscheidt discovered, so this is just the shorter period set of variables, that further define the limits, of the natural variables needed to be considered, along side the CO2 hypothesis, as the longer term/period parents (Milankivich and Landscheidt cycles) of these driving forces are valid. It would be in error if they were not considered and calculated into the filtering of the swings in the climate data, for forecasting longer terms into the future.

A sample of the cyclic pattern found in the meteorological database is presented as a composite of the past three cycles composited together and plotted onto maps for a 5 year period starting in 2008, and running to January of 2014, on a rough draft website I use to further define the shifts in the pattern from the past three to the current cycle, to continue learning about the details of the interactions.

http://www.aerology.com/national.aspx

The building of Stonehenge at the end of the last ice age, was done as the weather in the area was changing from tundra, to grasses and shrubs, in waves from the El nino effects at the time.

They began a study of the relationship between the Solar and Lunar declinational movement timing, found the lunar 18.6 year Mn minimum/maximum declinational cycle, the 19 year Metonic cycle where the moon is at the same phase and maximum declination on the same date every 19 years, and the 6585 day Saris cycle of eclipses.

From combining the annual seasonal effects of apparent solar declination, and the short term effects of the Lunar declinational movement. The Incas and Mayans understood repeating weather patterns well enough to build a thriving culture, that supported a much larger population, than the area currently barely supports in poverty.

Then along came the Conquistadors, that were assumed to be the gods foretold in prophecy, who took over and killed off the high priests and the learned class (because the Catholic priests with them were convinced, they were idolaters and heretics.) so all were lost that understood how the “Pagan religion” was able to grow that much food with little problems, by the timing of celebrations and festivals that the people partook of, in a joyous and productive mood.

The Mayan stone masons who were busy carving out the next stone block to carve another 300 years of calendar upon, were put to work mining gold to export back to Spain. So with the next stone block unfinished, and in the rough, still in the quarry the Mayan calendar comes to an end in 2012.

Most of the population of the area was either killed in battles, or worked to death, while on cocaine to minimize food consumption, and mined gold for export by the false gods.

At home in Europe the Spanish inquisition sought to wipe out the fund of knowledge, (that went underground) about the interactions of the Solar and Lunar declinational movements and other sidereal stellar influences on people, and things in the natural world. As the result of mass killings, and book burnings much knowledge, and data history was lost.

Nicolas Copernicus, (19, February 1473 – 24 May 1543) and Nostradamus, (21 December, 1503 – 2 July 1566) Were around at about the same time and may have collaborated in person, or through a net work of underground friends. To give Nostradamus the idea to convert the data sets of past history sorted by geocentric astrology locations and positions, to a Heliocentric data base from which he drew his famous quatrains. There are many references to late night calculations, aside observations that may have given him his accuracy. Then along came Galileo Galilie , (15, February, 1564 – 8 January, 1642) with proof, that round moons circled round planets.

With the advent of good fast cheap computers, I was able to look at data sets ( although with considerably less coverage due to centuries of suppression,) and sort for Planetary and Lunar influences, and found that the Lunar declinational component, of the orbital movements, of the Moon, was responsible for the driving, of the Rossby Wave patterns, in sync with the lunar declinational tidal forces at work in the atmosphere.

How does this all work you ask? Well there is a magnetic field that surrounds the sun, and magnetic fields, that are invested in the body of the Galaxy. These large scale standing fields, interact to produce fluctuations in the strength of the fields felt upon the Earth as it moves in it's orbit.

The poles of the Earth are tilted to the axis of the solar system ~23 ½ degrees, giving us the changing seasons. The sun on the other hand is different it's axis of rotation is vertical, but the magnet poles are tilted ~12 degrees, so as it rotates on an average of 27.325 day period, the polarity of the magnetic fields felt via the solar wind, shifts from the result of the orientation determined by the position of the rotating magnetic poles of the sun.

The inner core of the moon has frozen, the outer core of the Earth is still molten, and a concentration of the magnetically permeable materials that make up the earth. These pulses of alternating North then South magnetic field shifts has been going on since before the Earth condensed into a planet and then was later struck by a Mars sized object (so the current theory goes), that splashed off most of the crust.

Most returned to the Earth, some was lost into interplanetary space, and some condensed into the moon. Somewhere in the process the center of mass of the moon gravitated toward the surface that faces the Earth, before it froze, causing that denser side to always face the Earth.

It is not the center of mass of the Earth that scribes the orbital path of the Earth about the sun but the center of mass of the composite Earth / moon barycenter that lies about 1,200 kilometers off of the center of mass of the Earth, always positioned between the center of the earth and the center of the Moon. So as the Moon rotates around the earth to create the lunar light phases, the center of mass of the earth goes from inside to out side, around the common barycenter. As the Moon moves North / South in it's declination, the center of mass of the earth goes the opposite direction to counter balance, around their common barycenter that scribes the smooth ellipse of the orbit around the sun. So really the Earth makes 13 loops like a strung out spring every year.

The magnetic impulses in the solar wind has driven the Moon / Earth into the declinational dance that creates the tides in phase in the atmosphere, because of the pendulum type movement the Moon hangs at the extremes of declination almost three days with in a couple of degrees then makes a fast sweep across the equator at up to 7 to 9 degrees per day. At these culminations of declination movement the polarity of the solar wind peaks and reverses, causing a surge in the reversal of the ion flux generated as a result. Because of the combination of both peak of Meridian flow surge in the atmosphere, and reversal of ion charge gradient globally occurs at the same time like clock work most severe weather occurs at these times.

Because of the semi boundary conditions caused by mountain ranges, the Rockies, Andes, Urals, Alps, Himalayas, that resulted in topographical forcing into a four fold pattern of types of Jet stream patterns, I had to use not a 27.325 day period but a 109.3 day period to synchronize the lunar declinational patterns into the data to get clearer repeatability than the same data set filtered by Lunar phase alone.

There is a pattern of 6554 days where in the inner planets, Mars, Earth, Venus, and Mercury, make an even number of orbital revolutions, and return to almost the same relative position to the star field.

Most of these, with the exception of the Earth, have rather weak magnetospheres, so their magnetic influence is lower than the Outer Gas Planets, JSUN, Pluto is so slow and small I just left it out.

By adding 4 days to this period I get 6558 days the time it takes the Moon to have 240 declinational cycles of 27.325 days, so that by using 6558 days as a synchronization period I get the lunar Declination angle, lunar phase, perigee / apogee cycle, and the relative positions of the inner planets to align from the past three (6558 day) cycles well enough that the average of the temperatures, and the totals of the precipitations give a picture of the repeating pattern, from the last three to forecast the next almost 18 year long string of weather related events, with a better accuracy than the forecast available for three to five days from NOW from conventional NWS / NOAA sources.

So by looking at the periods of declinational movement and the four fold pattern of Rossby wave propagation, while maintaining the inner planet synchronization. I get all of these influences in sync to look almost the same, as the current conditions, even to periods of hail, and tornado production.

When the outer planets are added into the mix, they are out of phase in regard to the inner planet / Lunar patterns, and their influences are not in Sync with these background patterns. There are lines of magnetic force that connect each planet to the sun, and these revolve around with the planets naturally.

As the Earth's orbit takes it between these outer planets and the sun (at Synodic conjunctions), the increase in magnetic fields carried via the solar wind, (to effect this outer planet coupling) is felt upon the Earth's magnetosphere, and results in a temporary increase in the pole to equator charge gradient then a discharge back to ambient levels (about a two week long up then down cycle time), how this interferes or combines with the “usual lunar / inner planet patterns” is determined by whether it is in, or out of phase with the background patterns.

During normal charge cycles more moisture is driven into the atmosphere carrying positive Ions, along the ITCZ, and in discharge cycle phases waves of free electrons, and negative ions are sent down from the poles into the mid-latitudes. Charge cycles inhibit precipitation amounts and discharge cycles produce increased precipitation amounts along existing frontal boundaries, due to changes in residual ion charge differences between the air masses.

There is a seasonal increase in magnetic fields coupled from the center of out galaxy to the sun that peaks in mid June (summer solstice), and then decreases till winter solstice. As the magnetic charging cycle associated with this build up in Northern hemisphere Spring, it brings on a bias for surges of positive ionized air masses, that produces surges of tornadoes in phase with the lunar declinational culminations, and other severe weather, will also be enhanced by Synod conjunctions with outer planets, by the same increases of positively charged ions. The closer the timing of the conjunction to a peak lunar culmination the sharper the spike of production, like cracking a whip.

During discharge phases from summer solstice through fall in general, tropical storms manifest as large scale discharge patterns to ring the moisture, heat, and excess ions out of the tropical air masses. Outer planets conjunctions at these times help to build moisture reserves in the atmosphere, during their ion charge contribution, and enhance storms to category 4 and 5 levels when in phase with their discharge phase influences.


From a viewpoint of how the assemblage of parts seamlessly fits together,the only thing you have to do, is to watch the (short but seemingly) endless stream of (every 15 minute) infrared and/or vapor satellite photos animated, (after fixing the jumping around of the originals, due to lack of foresight, that they might be useful some day), and synchronized by 27.32 days periods, to see the repeating cycles.

To set up five tiled windows, in the first show day #1 through #27 sequentially, then as they continue on in the same stream, the cycle of the first 27 days continues anew in window #2, synchronized by Lunar declination to #1. Till they spill over into window #3 stepping in phase with the other two, #4 the same idea gives you the four basic patterns of the Rossby wave 109.3 day cycle, of global circulation, that then repeat but seasonally shifted.

In window #5 then would be the first repeat of window #1 in the same phase of the same pattern, and should look a lot like window #1. As the progression through the total series, proceeds, when you get 6558 days into the five stacks, a 6th window opens and the original day #1 in window #1 opens as #1 in window #6. As the series progresses on, real data can be viewed, in the real interactions going on.

This would give you a look into the cyclic pattern that develops from the repetitive interaction of the inner planets, and tidal effects, caused by the Lunar declination, phase, perigee/ apogee cycles.

By adding a sliding ball, vertically moving up and down a +-30 degree scale bar (referenced from the Equator), on the side of each tile space, that shows the plot of the current Lunar declination for the time of each frame. Which will allow you to see the shifts in the Lunar declinational angle's effects, as the 18.6 Mn signal progresses.

By adding another slide bar of +-30 degrees (with the heliocentric synod conjunction with Earth, as the zero reference), at the top, of each tile you could view each outer planet as we pass them, as color coded discs labeled, J, S,U, N, shifting from left to right. From viewing this progression of the outer planets, the merit of their influences, can then be seen in the additional surges in ion flux as they go by. You can watch the changes in the normal background, of the global circulation driven by the moon and inner planets, affected by the outer planets.

By adding in the surface maps for the past historic temperatures, dew points, precipitation, types, and amounts, as overlays onto the IR/VAPOR photos, the patterns will be abundantly clear to 10 year old school kids. At the same time, generating a good long term forecast, set of analogs to base the models upon.

Once the amount of additional angular momentum, and the process of it's coming and goings can be clearly seen, it can then be measured, it's effects calculated, and incorporated into the climate models, as a real quantized feedback. thereby giving us a much better picture, of the interactions, of all of the parts of the puzzle.

All of the necessary data is in the archives, and free to use, to those that have the where with all, to assemble the real truth, be it inconvenient or not. I will probably spend the rest of my life, trying to do it alone, out of my own funds, as I have done so far.

For application in Quake sightings, and subsequent formulating hypothesis and developing forecast parameters, you could substitute, or add (if your video resolutions is good enough), intensity quantified dots on the surface of occurring quakes (play with color coded shift and fade out time, to see time shifts etc.) and a corresponding moving open circle, showing the moving location of the earth/moon center line.

something to think about,
Richard Holle
Posted by: aerology

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/12/2009 15:46

From the paper linked above:

http://cdaw.gsfc.nasa.gov/geomag_cdaw/data/cdaw3/mlalgravitywave/IJRSPMarch05.doc

Quote:
Fig.2 shows the amplitude of acoustic gravity waves obtained during Nov-Dec 2004 at equatorial latitude station, Tirunelveli (8.7oN, 77.8oE), India. The lower panel shows the –Dst index variation which is the minimum value of each day. The minimum value of the Dst index has reached up to -390 nT on 7th Nov 2004. Corresponding amplitude of gravity wave has been obtained and is shown in upper panel of Fig. 2. There is a maxima in the amplitude of gravity wave has been obtained on 14th Nov 2004. There is a time lag of 7 days has been obtained between the –Dst index maxima and maxima of gravity wave amplitude. Thus, this figure shows that the influence of geomagnetic storm on the tropospheric acoustic gravity waves at equatorial latitude station has been obtained at the time lag of 7 days.


The minimum value was reached (7 Nov. 2004) when the Lunar declination was the same as the Latitude of the measuring station, and the Maximum value reached just before the Lunar declination culmination at Maximum South.(14 Nov. 2004)

Quote:
In the second case, the maxima of - Dst index has been obtained on 1st September 2004 and the corresponding maxima of the amplitude of acoustic gravity wave has been obtained on 18th Spt 2004. This shows that there is a time lag of 17 days has been obtained between the maxima of –Dst index variation and amplitude of acoustic gravity waves. Though the amplitude of AGW obtained in second event is less compared to the first event. It appears that there is a dependence between the strength of the Dst index and the time lag of effect reflection on the equatorial tropospheric altitude.


In this case the Moon was going from South to North, at about the same latitude as the station on the 1st Sept 2004, and was Maximum lunar declination culmination of ~27 degrees North on the 8th or early 9th of Sept 2004, then passed over the same latitude as the station again on the 17th Sept 2004.

Quote:
It may be possible that there could be interaction between the two events which might have caused significant changes in the amplitude of AGW from one event to the other. Further there is an increase in the amplitude of AGW has been obtained on the last week of December 2003 which is about 60 days after the severe geomagnetic storm took place on 31 Oct 2003. Bhattacharya et al. (1998) has studied the solar – meteorological – geomagnetic relationship at low latitude station, Calcutta and noticed that the occurrence of depression is followed by the severe geomagnetic storm condition. This figure shows that the increase in amplitude of gravity waves obtained during the last week of December 2003 may be due to the occurrence of depression in Bay of Bangal which took place between East coast of Tamil Nadu and Sri. Lanka. Similar phenomena has also been observed after the severe geomagnetic storm of September 2000.

Fig. 5 shows the Power Spectral Density (PSD) obtained in September 2000. the lower panel of the graph shows the –Dst index variation which found to be having maximum value on 17 September 2000 and its maximum value was – 201 nT. The effect of the strong geomagnetic storm has been found in the variation of amplitude of acoustic gravity waves, and the maximum value of the amplitude of AGW is found on 25 Spt 2000. Thus, there is a lag of 8 days has been obtained between the maximum value of the –Dst index and the Power Spectral Density of the acoustic gravity waves. The weather record shows that there was cyclone in last week of Nov 2000. Similar to the event of Oct – Nov 2003, Spt 2000 geomagnetic storm also shows that there is occurrence of depression in Bay of Bangal, near to the east coast of Observatory ( Ocean is 30 Km east from the Observatory), has occurred. This could be triggered by the geomagnetic storm events.


Here I think you can see the tropical storm intensification I have been talking about. It was from papers such as this one, that I started gaining momentum for developing this hypothesis.

Quote:
DISCUSSION :

It is known that the upper atmosphere shows a clearly defined response to geomagnetic storms. A response to geomagnetic disturbances is also observed in the lower stratosphere and troposphere. However, this response is not so pronounced as e.g., in the ionospheric F2 region and depends on quite different processes (Avdyushin & Danilov, 2000). Roberts and Olson (1973) found a relation between the winter pressure drop at a level of 300 hPa and geomagnetic storms in the North American and North Atlantic zones. A change in the near – Earth pressure in the European and Siberian sectors after strong sporadic magnetic storm was found in the series of works by Mustel et al. (1977). Bucha (1991) found near – Earth pressure in the North Atlantic region decreased as a result of magnetic storms, deepened Icelandic depression, enhanced zonal circulation at a level of 500 hPa, and corresponding temperature variations in the North Atlantic region and Europe were found. Here, it was established that the corresponding effects are most pronounced in winter than in summer. Clearly defined effects of magnetic storms on a change in the vorticity index (which largely reflects the degree of troposphere disturbance) at a level of 500 hPa were revealed in Padgaonkar and Aurora (1981). Lastovicka et al. (1992) formulated three specific features of the tropospheric response to geomagnetic storm :

(1)Tropospheric responses have a micro regional character, possibly due to changes in circulation and orography.
(2)The tropospheric response to magnetic storm is much more pronounced in winter than in summer, possibly, because the direct solar radiation input to the troposphere is lower, and the atmosphere is less stable in winter.
(3)The winter response of the troposphere substantially depends on the phase of QBO.
Bowman and Moritmer (2001) found weather associations at reasonably high levels of significance with enhanced geomagnetic activity (EGA). Statistically this EGA involved either short delays of several days or long delays of about 20 days. The long delays has been explained due to the active regions on the sun to be displaced by 180 degrees of solar longitude. Bowman (2000) suggested that the changes to weather systems, influenced by atmospheric gravity waves generated at times of delayed ionospheric D-region absorption. Another hypothesis considers the delays associated with the movement of weather pattern from polar regions following EGA.


From which I found the four fold pattern of rotation of the Rossby wave patterns / jet stream locations, to be directly affecting the strength and phase of the time lag as the solar storm induced surges in the ion flux, that surfed in on the Lunar declinational tidal signal.

The Morning Glory waves are density wave pulses of Lunar declinational tidal surges that come off of the Indian Ocean unannounced. I have been forecasting them accurately for several years now. Past e-mail below;)

Quote:
Hi Richard,

Here's an email I wrote to a few of the other pilots and the people on Sweers Island.

Congratulations on an excellent prediction for 2009!

Regards,

Russell.



Compare the 2009 predictions below with the recorded events on this page:
http://www.dropbears.com/m/morning_glory/data.htm

(I don't have any data after the 14th, and discount the Southerly as the predictions are only good for NE waves)

Brian & Paul, can we discuss next year's dates, please? Any more upcoming weddings you foresee, Paul?

Cheers,

Russell.

Lyn Battle wrote:

Hi Russell, tks for that - we noted the one on the 19th as 'poorly formed'
but nothing on the 17th.

cheers from Sweers,

lyn


-----Original Message-----
From: Russell White [mailto:brough@dropbears.com] Sent: Monday, 22 September 2008 2:41 PM
To: Phil at Flying Diamond; Brian Marshall; Lyn Battle Sweers
Cc: Nigel Baker
Subject: Re: Fw: Morning Glory....

Thanks once more, Phil.

Below are the forecasts for 2008, 2009 & 2010 based on data from years prior to 2000. The first date, 17th Sept 08, is possibly correct but I have no reports; however, a wave did come on the the 19th which was quite good, apparently. Richard Holle also states the 26th as highly probable, and looking at the synoptics I'd have to agree.

I've sent him the data I've collected from you and other pilots, but it only covers the past three years so it's a bit sparse. I'm hoping to get more data from Geoff Pratt and the pilots from WA.

Cheers,

Russell.

2008
9-17-08 Slight chance / Small weak wave (first probable)
9-26-08 High probability / Good wave
10-01-08 Chance / Medium wave
10-02-08 Chance / Medium wave
10-10-08 Good chance / Medium wave
10-11-08 Good chance / Medium wave
10-12-08 Slight chance / Medium wave
10-13-08 Good chance / Good wave
10-14-08 Better chance/ Better wave
10-15-08 Chance / Medium wave
10-16-08 Slight chance / Small wave
10-23-08 Last chance / Small to Medium wave

2009
9-17-09 Slight chance / Small wave
9-22-09 Slight chance / Small wave
9-29-09 Good chance / Medium wave
10-02-09 Slight chance / Small wave
10-03-09 Slight chance / Small wave
10-11-09 Slight chance / Medium wave
10-12-09 Good chance / Good wave
10-13-09 Good chance / Good wave
10-14-09 Good chance / Good wave
10-15-09 Slight chance / Medium to Good wave
10-17-09 Slight chance / Small last wave

2010
9-25-10 Slight chance / Medium to Good wave
9-26-10 Slight chance / Medium to Good wave
10-01-10 Good chance / Medium wave
10-02-10 Very Good chance / Good wave
10-03-10 Very Good chance / Good wave
10-04-10 Slight chance / Medium wave
10-05-10 Slight chance / Small wave
10-06-10 Very Good chance / Good wave
10-07-10 Very Good chance / Smaller wave
10-17-10 Good chance / Medium wave
10-18-10 Good chance / Medium wave
10-22/23-10 Slight chance for last weak to medium wave
Posted by: aerology

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/12/2009 17:03

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
Aerology thanks very much for all the posts, but I would suggest with all the knowledge you appear to have, you are posting way above anyone elses grasp of what you are doing. You would need to start back at square one and state the simple basics as to a lot of schoolies to lead us all through what you are saying and doing. You obviously know well what you are saying, but to us (and I speak on behalf of all or most I would think anyway) you are throwing us in the deep end, without us knowing the first more basic principles of what you are saying, ie what does "Lunar declinational angle's effects' do to the weather, and what do all these do to the weather, "interaction of the inner planets, and tidal effects, caused by the Lunar declination, phase, perigee/ apogee cycles", and what does this do "angular momentum", and what do these do "surges in magnetic flux seen in the solar wind from the viewpoint of the effects these changes in global static/ionic charges", "a surge in charge in the global homopolar generated static pole to equator fields, and reflective changes in the Earth's angular momentum and LOD", etc. While this is all interesting, most of likely have not a clue what these are, and especially what their effects on the weather and climate are? You will need to gho back to grade 1 level and bring us slowly up to speed if you are going to help us to understand just what your theories are. I would like to know, but I am having great trouble going through the posts to get to first base, sorry?


definitions are in order I guess,
Lunar declination (LDec) is the angle from the Equator to the Moon at any particular moment, and swings from North /South and back in 27.325 days, there is a progression of the ~5 degrees the moon swings, with reference to the ecliptic plane, to achieve the 18.6 year Mn pattern of variation, from Minimum ~23.5 degrees -~5 degrees to yield ~18 degrees either side of the equator in the same time period, as it takes to run the Maximum angle ~23.5 degrees +~5 degs to run ~28.5 either side of the Equator.

As the LDec angle comes into phase with ~23.5 degree apparent solar declination the two tidal forces combine, making a more coherent wave, with less turbulence and more size. (Remember 1982?)(Like the swishing of the water with your hand in a partially filled bath tub can be driven into oscillation by finding the period from end to end. The size, shape, and depth of water in the tub changes the period and action of the resultant waves.)

The same is true in regard to the forms, the turbulence takes in the Atmosphere, changing the strength of the decade long variations formed by the interactions across the oceans, each has a know set of indicators, but they all are driven by the LDec tides, interactions with the Magnetic fields, that the Earth passes through when having a Synod conjunction, with each of the outer planets, every year in periods from ~367days for the slower ones and ~378-380 days for Jupiter.

Quite similar to the solar storms in the paper earlier. There are Homopolar generator effects that occur when a magnetically conductive body rotates in a magnetic field, producing a static / ionic charge gradient from +Positive at the circumference (Equator/ITCZ), and -Negative at the poles.

Whenever there is a change in the fields strength, rotation speed, or charge distribution it affects the others, in effect conserving the angular momentum of the rotational speed of the Earth.

There are studies that quantify the change in the Length Of Day (LOD) as it shifts due to interactions with both the annual shifts in the Galactic fields, the angular momentum shifts between the Earth and Moon as they swing around their common barycenter, and lastly the interactions with the increased flux in the solar wind due to magnetic storms and synod conjunctions with the outer planets.

There is a known standing charge gradient from pole to Equator, that averages about 90 to 100 Volts/meter due to this effect, that is known to vary as much as 20% from the total electromagnetic shifts felt on the Earth, from the composite influences. The power released by lightning is the most visible observation of these changes, it is the excess ions over what it takes to over come residual ionic charges on tidally perturbed air masses that form, to make up the LDec Tidal bulges, that peak at LDec culmination both North and South, with secondary bulges in the opposite Hemisphere.

This is what drives the meridian flow surges in the patterns of global circulation into their resultant formation of Rossby waves and Jet streams, and are forecast able if you look at the 27.325 day LDec periods X 4. Changes in the progression in the 18.6 Mn signal phase gives the same results as changing the water level in the tub.

The period stays the same, but the total power increases with depth/volume moved. When the speed of transit (in degrees /day) increases it generates more turbulence, the wash of equatorial air masses, increases into the mid-latitudes, as the LDec angle climbs to the Maximum of the 18.6 year mn cycle, brings more tropical moisture with it. As the tide turns, (as in 2005 and the record # of observable hurricanes, and Typhoons) then the out wash of drier more polar air masses, slide back toward the Equator\, as the LDec angle drops from Maximum on the 18.6 year pattern. Bringing Australia long term periods of drier years, and sometimes severe droughts, depending on the interactions of the outer planets into the residual patterns of the rhythmic interactions of the Sun, Earth, Moon and inner planet patterns.

Where as changing the "temperature of the water alone" gives NO more shift to the frequency of the oscillation, than does changing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere, does to the resultant wind speeds in the turbulence of storms.

(Long enough rant?)
Posted by: Keith

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/12/2009 20:36

On another forum we have been told that all the warming since 1950 has been caused by humans.

When I hear statements like this, it seems to turn from science into a battle of wits. Only the strongest in mind survive.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/12/2009 20:46

Yes, well, long enough Aero, but still much of it way above me. I will look have to do a bit of reading up.
At present I use sea surface temperature anomolies and differences around the globe to in the main successfully
forecast the weather out to 12 months ahead for Australia...However, I am always interested to see any new research
and other methods. One has to always be open and keep looking at all things. Thanks for the info.
Posted by: Lindsay Smail

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/12/2009 21:24

I have heard such a statement before, Keith, but it was by a scientist in a room of (mainly) peers. I wanted to laugh aloud, but I guess I felt threatened - classic argument from authority. I challenged the speaker privately afterwards, and he gave me the impression he was the only one who ought to know - certainly not yours truly.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 07/12/2009 10:20

Ok, back to the actual science behind all the hoopla and the mess and fraud the climate scientists have got themselves into.

Roy Spencer, head of the Uni of Alabama's Satellite global temperature analysis who together with the also satellite based Remote Sensing Systems unit are about the only two global temperature measuring organisations left standing with their reputations intact and their data still regarded as the most reliable and accurate around and above all, free from claims of manipulation to get specifically desired results required to confirm an ideology.
The satellite based global temperature data covers just too short a period to provide any definitive direction on where global temperatures are going but the UAH temp data trend is flat lining for the last decade as is RSS.
There has been a divergence for some months, an increasing difference between these two sat based global temp analysis systems but it is believed that this is due to the manner in which the diurnal component , the daylight / dark component in the complex calculations are treated.
This divergence is now reversed and the two systems are converging again in their agreement on sat based global temperature trends.
Roy Spencer in one of his earlier posts forecast that this reconvergence towards a common trend numbers would be the case as the winter / summer component differences in the calculations evened out.

So Roy Spencer's views on the all important feedbacks that are critical to the direction, if any, of global temperature trends is of critical importance.
Rising CO2 levels of course, in themselves, contribute only a very small component to any global temperature rise.
The real increases if any, are from the feedbacks , positive or negative, that the tiny increases in temperature from rising CO2 levels are supposed to trigger according to the global warming alarmists.

Roy Spencer's post on feedbacks is here; Can Global Warming Predictions be Tested with Observations of the Real Climate System?
Posted by: mobihci

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 07/12/2009 13:36

aerology,

you are going to have to be more descriptive of the problem of solar flares twisting fields. the flares are not predictable in the short term, but maybe in long term climate.

you will also have to explain each of the interactions with the imf using plasma physics ie- http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10993&page=46
---------
"Plasma populations throughout the universe interact with solid bodies, gases, magnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, magnetohydrodynamic waves, shock waves, and other plasma populations. These interactions can occur locally as well as on very large scales between objects such as galaxies, stars, and planets. They can be loosely classified into electromagnetic interactions, flow-object interactions, plasma-neutral interactions, and radiation-plasma interactions.

Magnetic field lines connecting different plasma populations act as channels for the transport of plasmas, currents, electric fields, and waves between the two environments. In this way, the two plasmas become coupled electromagnetically to one another. Examples of electromagnetic interactions include the transfer of mass, momentum, and energy between Earth’s magnetosphere and ionosphere; the outward transport of angular momentum in the jovian magnetosphere; and the production of accretion disks around protostars.

When a flowing magnetized plasma strikes a solid object, an atmosphere, or a magnetosphere, strong interactions of various types can occur. Flow-object interactions range from the simple sputtering of ions from solid surfaces (like the Moon) to the production of flux ropes around unmagnetized planets with atmospheres (like Venus), to magnetic reconnection and the resulting production of large-scale disturbances (like magnetic storms) at planets with magnetospheres.

Throughout the solar system and universe, plasmas are generally embedded in a background neutral gas with which they interact. Plasma-neutral interactions range from ion drag and “flywheel” effects in collision-dominated ionospheres; to charge-exchange reactions in the rarefied plasmas of magnetospheres and stellar winds; to dust-plasma interactions in cometary atmospheres, interstellar molecular clouds, protoplanetary disks, planetary rings, and stellar nebulas.

Radiation-plasma interactions are important in solar and stellar atmospheres, which respond to and mediate radiation in the form of magnetohydrodynamic waves and shocks emanating from the stellar surfaces and more energetic ultraviolet and x-ray photons propagating downward from the stellar coronas. These interactions will determine, for example, how ultraviolet emissions observed from stellar atmospheres are best interpreted in terms of their vertical structure"
------

you will have to explain coulping better ie it is easy to understand in the terms of a transformer, one insulated wire in a closed loop carrying current transfers energy through the magnetic field to another closed loop insulated wire. the sun has a field or closed loop, the earth has a field or closed loop, to join the two together is a simple matter of having a 'proxy' for the suns field to bring it closer to the earths field, enter the wind (imf).

the complexity comes from the fact that the plasma itself is its own field. the charged particles flowing in the wind that is the plasma also have a magnetic component which is the residual charge from the exit of the sun so the magnetic component will depend also on the state when it left the sun, the wind should be considered physically separate from the sun, so free to move. the field lines move and twist with the wind. the imf is an open field.

venus is presented to the wind as a non magnetically permeable ball of mass.-

---------
"In the case of nonmagnetized bodies, such as Venus, Mars, and comets, it is the planetary or cometary ionosphere, not a strong intrinsic magnetic field, that is the obstacle to the solar wind. The boundary that separates the solar wind plasma from the ionospheric plasma is called the ionopause (Figure 4.3). Unlike the ionospheric plasma, the body’s neutral atmosphere is not confined by this boundary and extends beyond it into the solar wind-dominated region. Here, some of the neutral atoms or molecules are converted by photoionization, impact ionization, and charge exchange into ions, which are then picked up by the solar wind’s motional electric field, mass loading the solar wind and slowing its flow. In addition to the thermal pressure of the ionosphere against the solar wind, the solar wind is also opposed by a magnetic barrier that
forms because of the piling up of solar wind magnetic field lines at the ionopause as the solar wind plasma is slowed and compressed by the encounter with the ionospheric obstacle. As in the case of magnetized bodies, the separation of the solar wind plasma and the planetary or cometary plasma is not perfect, and at times of high solar wind dynamic pressure, the solar wind magnetic field may penetrate into the ionosphere."

----------

so the interaction is a phsyical process, and the ropes that form are not a coupling to the planet, but a form of closed loop in itself, ie the rope form around the planet, with the connection to the sun through the plasma but there is no interaction, ie no coupling with the sun.

earth can i suppose couple, but as i have said before its a bloody mess and in the end will mean very little as compared with the coupling to the wind (imf). the force lines are not only twisted from the tilt of the different field (sun and earth), but the speed of the wind itself. this is something that cannot be predicted without understanding each component extremely well.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 07/12/2009 18:25

ETS Petition

http://www.stevefielding.com.au/ets_petition/
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 09/12/2009 19:56

From The Australian; Climate claims fail science test

Michael Asten is a professorial fellow in the school of geosciences at Monash University, Melbourne.

Looks like they have been caught not only in manipulating and corrupting the global temperature data covering the last 110 years but now the science is starting to drive a truck through the whole of the so called global warming science that underpins the entire claims for anthropgenic global warming and the AGWer's "climate change".
Any warming is just another completely natural phenomena just as any cooling is also as natural phemomena, both driven by guessed at but still unexplained natural forces as the global temperature currently oscillates irregularly within narrow band of temperatures.

Quote:
They unravelled records of atmosphere, temperature and ice-cap formation 33.6 million years ago, when the Earth cooled from a greenhouse without ice caps, into something quite similar to our present day.

These results from "Laboratory Earth" have a particular advantage: we can see what happened after the event for two million years.

With today's records we see changes in atmospheric CO2 and temperature over 50 years and seek to project what will happen in the future.

Pearson's work contains a couple of remarkable results.

First the greenhouse atmosphere pre-cooling contained a CO2 concentration of 900 parts per million by volume, or more than three times that of the Earth in pre-industrial days.

We can't be sure what triggered the Earth to cool despite, or because of, its changing green-house atmospheric blanket, but once it did, cycles of ice cap formation and glaciation commenced, apparently governed by the same variations in the Earth's orbit that govern the ice ages of the past million years.

Second, while the cooling of the Earth took place over a time-span of around 200,000 years, the atmospheric CO2 first dropped in association with the cooling, then rose to around 1100ppmv and remained high for 200,000 years while the Earth cooled further and remained in its new ice ages cycle.

We can compare these huge swings (both up and down) in atmospheric CO2 with current computer-modelled estimates of climate sensitivity by the IPCC which suggest that a doubling of CO2 relative to pre-industrial

If the Earth started a cycle of ice ages 33.6 million years ago while having its very carbon-rich atmosphere, and if the Earth showed cycles of ice-age activity when atmospheric CO2 was four times the level that it was in humankind's pre-industrial times, what new information must we incorporate into our present climate models?


Quote:
Another key parameter in climate modelling is the warming amplification associated with increasing CO2 in our atmosphere.

This amplification factor is generally believed to be greater than one, giving rise to an understanding that increases in atmospheric CO2 amplify warming (a positive feedback in the physical process), and the IPCC has quantified this to deliver the finding that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in man-made greenhouse gas concentrations.

However since the IPCC's fourth report, our Laboratory Earth has also delivered new data on this CO2-induced amplification factor.

The tool for the study in this instance is recent satellite-based temperature data now extending over 30 years.

Building on a methodology published 15 years ago in Nature, climatologist and NASA medallist John Christy and colleague David Douglass studied global temperature impacts of volcanic activity and ocean-atmospheric oscillations (the "El Nino" effect) and separated these from global temperature trends over the past 28 years.

The result of their analysis is a CO2-induced amplification factor close to one, which has implications clearly at odds with the earlier IPCC position.

The result was published this year in the peer-reviewed journal Energy and Environment and the paper has not yet been challenged in the scientific literature.

What this means is that the IPCC model for climate sensitivity is not supported by experimental observation on ancient ice ages and recent satellite data.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 11/12/2009 15:56

If you want the science? Then apparently this is it.


http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Zagoni_Miskolczi.pdf
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/12/2009 02:23

Might be a bit off topic but does anyone know why Climategate is now losing numbers on google searches? gone down to 26,900,000 compared to more than 30 mill the other day?
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/12/2009 13:43

You know its funny, when I was young and through much of my earlier life 70's/80's I always shot down AGW with plenty of the same arguments as can be brought forward now. I think that for anyone who has an interest in the weather it feels like an invasion/intrusion of your interest to think that people are changing the weather that I enjoy. It feels like there is no where you can enjoy the natural forces of nature. That is one thing that kept me on the side of those who do not believe AGW for a long time. However now with all I have seen and know I just cannot jusify my former stance. My own life long observations from whatever part of the world or Australia I have lived in have always ever only shown one trend and that is up from the day I was born until today. To deny AGW now would be like denying that I have a malignant tumor or denying that the colour of red is red.
Posted by: mobihci

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/12/2009 14:59

i think most people become sceptical about agw when they first hear about the mwp, this is why the ipcc demanded a graph that looked the part. it is an important selling tool for the propaganda, and if shown to be incorrect will start a chain reaction of questions, which it has many years ago.

once people start to look at the issue, they rarely turn back from being sceptical. in fact it becomes almost impossible to convince someone that agw exists when they have had that position previously and have studied enough to change their opinion. those that never had the opinion like to say they are on the fence to draw in viewers to their arguments, but rarely do the arguments stand up with agw. they always flop because truth is on the side of the fence sitter ie we do not know enough to decide.

the party line is that human induced global warming is caused by rising levels of co2 and that something must be done to reduce levels or the consequences will be disastrous. ie your typical scare campaign.

those sceptical of any or all of that are the fence sitters, ie they dont have a position, just an opinion of what they are being told. what that means is that if they were not to have an opinion on the 'party line' then that is what they accept as truth. if you believe it may or may not be truth (any part of it) then you are sceptical of the position.

to accept agw is the same as having faith in the politician. to deny agw is a reasonable position given the amount of information that falsifies not just one part of it, but all. but then the twisting of terminology is the political way so words must be chosen wisely when discussing agw to the spin doctors. eg climate change v global warming. deny or sceptic. the word sounds harsh, so it is used. if you look at the definition of deny, it does not require that an established truth is being rejected it can mean a declared or dictated truth is being rejected, but due to its link to the concentration camp denials, it is used to defame the people it is aimed at.
Posted by: Rime

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/12/2009 15:00

Snowmi,

Don't you consider the possibility that it may not be caused through human invention? What about the possible natural cycles that have been occurring for thousands and thousands of years? The logic that I see in your argument is that things have changed in my lifetime so therefore AGW must all be true. I fail to see this as black and white proof that man's evil ways have caused it when the Earth has been here a lot longer before you and I. There are dry periods, there are wet periods, there are warm periods and there are cool periods. Some of these periods are very short, only 1 to 2 years, others are very long that may last a few hundred years (i.e the MWP). Observing a trend in one's lifetime does not suggest it is due to man's fault. From my perspective, it would be naive to believe that blindly and you would be denying the natural fluctuations in our climate. Honestly, I think the true 'deniers' are those who are refusing to see other possibilities.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/12/2009 18:12

Rime, the thing that smacks me in the face though is that all indications including a very low solar activity suggest that it should not be as warm as it is now. To me it seems that almost every possible reason for the current warmth has been eliminated except for the rising CO2 level.
Posted by: Canberra's Weather

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/12/2009 18:28

Originally Posted By: snowmi
......To deny AGW now would be like denying that I have a malignant tumor or denying that the colour of red is red.
Don't let Kevin Rudd catch you saying that, otherwise it will give the Australian Labor Party yet more ammunition!

Anyway, now that you are convinced that it is real, what do you suppose is the solution, if there is one? And how long is it likely to take to solve?
Posted by: Keith

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/12/2009 18:41

In the temperature trends thread, I posted a couple of graphs relating to a rural site (Walgett, NSW). There, I posited a view that there were regular cycles. The charts show these going back well into early last century.

As the real issue seems to be whether man is the culprit for warming, we ought to ask ourselves whether it is physically possible for man, despite his pollution and despite the laws of physics, to warm the planet significantly, because, if it was, he would have to disrupt those cycles. They continue to show as regular as clockwork, and I can produce many more examples of the same thing..with the proviso of course that cycles will be different in different places. The cycles occur in every other aspect of long term climate, as I'm sure most people would acknowledge.

The presence of cycles in many different processes suggests that a far greater influence is operating than man's contribution.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/12/2009 19:30

I am still hoping that next decade will not be warmer than this one so I can still reconsider my position. BD's forecasts all show that it should cool during the next decade. However if it does not then you will continue to have a situation where all indications are for warming to cease yet it relentlesly continues.

CW, We all know the solution to most of mankinds problems and that is popuation reduction. If every person on the planet made a comitment to never have more than one child in their lifetime all our problems would quietly go away. That is the law that should be passed at Copenhagen. Just to create financial disincentives against more than one child world wide would have more effect than all the carbon trading put together. The carbon trading is just a joke, buying rights to burn carbon based on not cutting down a forest, its all just plain stupidity that will achieve nothing.
Posted by: Long Road Home

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/12/2009 19:51

Rime summed it up perfectly.

the fact that anyone would take the last 30 years of weather and imply AGW from it is ludicrous.. if you came back here after 10,000 years of observing and said the same thing i'd take it a bit more seriously but i'd still be cautious. warm periods and droughts can go for decades.
Posted by: Canberra's Weather

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/12/2009 20:10

Originally Posted By: snowmi
....CW, We all know the solution to most of mankinds problems and that is popuation reduction. If every person on the planet made a comitment to never have more than one child in their lifetime all our problems would quietly go away. That is the law that should be passed at Copenhagen. Just to create financial disincentives against more than one child world wide would have more effect than all the carbon trading put together. The carbon trading is just a joke, buying rights to burn carbon based on not cutting down a forest, its all just plain stupidity that will achieve nothing.
I couldn't agree with you more Snowmi.

It is sad that those so-called world leaders at Copenhagen just can't see such a simple solution as you described here.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/12/2009 21:16

I'd like to know why a warmer planet is a bad thing Snowmi, and for you to provide me with rock solid evidence that it is a bad issue for the planet??? Is it because you dislike hot weather and are a fan of the snow, or maybe a the change won't suit your life style? I know for me, warm is good...
Posted by: mobihci

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/12/2009 22:57

Originally Posted By: snowmi
I am still hoping that next decade will not be warmer than this one so I can still reconsider my position. BD's forecasts all show that it should cool during the next decade. However if it does not then you will continue to have a situation where all indications are for warming to cease yet it relentlesly continues.

CW, We all know the solution to most of mankinds problems and that is popuation reduction. If every person on the planet made a comitment to never have more than one child in their lifetime all our problems would quietly go away. That is the law that should be passed at Copenhagen. Just to create financial disincentives against more than one child world wide would have more effect than all the carbon trading put together. The carbon trading is just a joke, buying rights to burn carbon based on not cutting down a forest, its all just plain stupidity that will achieve nothing.


in a free and open society, population levels control themselves.

eg fertility rate of most of the western world is negative, eg australia is 1.7 and this has changed very little over the years, so for every 2 people, 1.7 are replacing them. given enough time this would reduce population or indeed kill us off. what changes this is bring people into the country from countries that have a higher than 2 fertility rate. eg africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

the reason why people reproduce so fast in these countries in the simple lack of wealth, education, stability and control over their own lives. its a natural survival instinct. poor = high fertility rate without exception. north america is close to 2, but would be less if it were it isolated like us. if you look at the list, you can see how closely related fertility is to wealth, not type of person, religion etc, just wealth.

so how do you make the third world rich, well for a while the world has tried just giving them money, but all this ends in is an increase in corruption and violence, and the same people that are the problem continue to be the problem. we can try our hand at controlling other governments like with the UN to get rid of the mugabes of the world, but this has failed and causes prolonged wars with just as bad an outcome.

two ways to deal with it. first is the inhumane way which is stop immigration and humanitarian programs completely, so this is out. the second is to wait until the africans etc look after themselves and form proper governments that wish to educate their own. i feel this period wouldnt be that long as to put severe stress on resources, especially seeing as china still has a level of communist control and can limit births even if it is inhumane.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 14/12/2009 08:25

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
I'd like to know why a warmer planet is a bad thing Snowmi, and for you to provide me with rock solid evidence that it is a bad issue for the planet??? Is it because you dislike hot weather and are a fan of the snow, or maybe a the change won't suit your life style? I know for me, warm is good...


Despite being a fan of snow, I would have nothing against warm as long as I get rain to keep my garden alive. In fact I have many times contemplated moving to Dorrigo or Coffs. The problem is that to cope with a warmer climate you do need more rain to compensate. The problem is that the rainfall just keeps decreasing as the temperature increases making it drier and drier which will eventualy kill my trees.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 19/12/2009 17:32

This is an edited excerpt from a 16-page essay I wrote on Global Warming and Earth Sciences:

It is known that water, CO2 and CO (carbon monoxide) absorption bands overlap [in the terrestrial spectrum] between 2.0 and 3.0 um, while CO2 and CO2 absorption bands overlap in the 4.0- to 5.0-um region. If the fraction of heat energy absorbed by CO2 [from the surface] is taken to be a third of the energy emitted between 2.0 and 3.0 um and half that emitted in the 4.0-to-5.0-um region (Scenario A), the corresponding heat energy absorbed by CO2 (in W/m2) is 32.88 W/m2, 14.7 to 16.5 um, 6.68 W/m2, 13.7 to 14.7 um, 1.66 W/m2, 4 to 5 um, and 0.006 W/m2, 2 to 3 um.

If the fraction of heat energy absorbed [from the surface] by CO2 is taken to be all that emitted in these thermal bandwidths (Scenario B), the values then become 32.88 W/m2, 20.03 W/m2, 3.32 W/m2, and 3.32 W/m2. In the first case, assuming equal absorption for CO2, CO and H2O, this represents a total of 10.55 percent of the 390.88 W/m2 emitted by the Earth. Assuming only CO2 emits in the above bandwidths gives a total 15.24 percent for the thermal terrestrial heat energy absorbed by CO2. The reason the figure for the energy emitted by the Earth after integrating Planck’s Radiation Equation is 390.88 W/m2 and not 390.98 W/m2 (with reference to the Energy Budget) may be due to errors in estimating the integral.

The corresponding temperature contributions (given by applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law) are:

Scenario A: 6.26oC, 1.24oC, 0.30oC and 0.001oC.
Scenario B: 6.26oC, 3.76oC, 0.62oC and 0.62oC.

The corresponding greenhouse effect contributions (given by dividing by 33oC) are:

Scenario A: 19%, 4%, 1% and less than 1%.
Scenario B: 19%, 11%, 2% and less than 2%.

Both Scenario A and B apply under non-anthropogenic [ideal natural] conditions, meaning no emissions, assume all radiant heat energy is absorbed by CO2 in the given spectral bandwidths, and assume no interference between molecules. Also, as the figures expressed above are a rough estimate, they should not be taken as being robust. They are guidelines.

References:

Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994, Vol. 2.
Radiance: Integrating the Planck Equation.
Posted by: mobihci

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 19/12/2009 19:34

but where is quantity?

co2 being 380ppm, water vapour 40,000ppm or higher. you could consider co2 better mixed than water vapour, but quantity cannot be ignored.

co2 could be considered 1% of ghg, but probably isnt due to the fact that water vapour varies so much and can be localised, then the best satellite info shows 70% coverage for clouds, but then the problem arises of cloud height etc. i dont believe for a second that anyone on this earth could possibly ever calculate how much influence co2 has on temperature with our current level of knowledge.

anyway lets give co2 10% of the greenhouse gas quantity available in the atmosphere to absorb ir, so in that 10% it has 100% of the bands not covered by the water vapour, and it has 10% of the bands that water vapour do cover. so its influence is effectively 10% of 10% of the total ghg.
Posted by: Stevo59

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 19/12/2009 21:51

What a bunch of people posting in this forum, who are not prepared to look more closely at the peer-reviewed science behind climate change! If you have grandchildren, I hope you can look them in the eye and guarantee that the world will be the same in 60 years time!!! My children know enough to never haver kids!!
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 19/12/2009 22:01

Sorry Steve most folk here have studied all the peer and non-peered studies on both sides and have come to their own conclusions based on sound science and good common sense. Most folk here as level headed environmental concious folk whom love life and nature and the world and people, and want what is best for them all...They just see the wrong science and flawed altered data and bad science and political motives behind the wrongly maligned CO2 gas. All we want is all sides and fair balanced and unaltered science shown, and no huge waste of money and rescources on the wrong ideas.
Posted by: Lindsay Smail

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 19/12/2009 22:21

"Peer reviewed science"? Where have you been for the last few weeks to still trust peer review when in the CRU case it has been shown to be manipulated and contrived, just like their fudged figures? How can climatology continue to be called a legitimate science when the dominant players have been caught out hiding codes, influencing editorial replacements, discussing ways to circumvent legitimate FOI requirements? It casts doubt and disgust on the whole IPCC agenda, and I feel sorry for our children who fall for the big lie.
Posted by: ----

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 19/12/2009 22:22

I would bloody well hope that the world was NOT the same in 60 years!
I agree with you there BD.
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 19/12/2009 22:22

Quote:
What a bunch of people posting in this forum, who are not prepared to look more closely at the peer-reviewed science behind climate change! If you have grandchildren, I hope you can look them in the eye and guarantee that the world will be the same in 60 years time!!! My children know enough to never haver kids!!


What a life to live , fearing the future so much.
Maybe you should take a good hard look at the peer reviewed literature yourself and see it for what it is.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/12/2009 14:14

Originally Posted By: mobihci
but where is quantity?

co2 being 380ppm, water vapour 40,000ppm or higher. you could consider co2 better mixed than water vapour, but quantity cannot be ignored.

The quantity of water vapour in the lower atmosphere is not evenly distributed, either vertically or horizontally, whereas CO2 is. In other words, the distribution of CO2 is overall homogenous, vertically and horizontally, while water vapour is heterogeneously distributed. In some regions, the lower atmosphere is very dry where it is plausible CO2 could contribute more significantly to terrestrial warming. In other regions, the concentration of water vapour may be 100 times higher hence the effects due to CO2 would be greatly diminished.

It also might be pertinent to consider the 8 to 12 ppm O3 in the stratospheric ozone layer, which absorbed most of the harmful incoming UV rays from the Sun.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/12/2009 20:07

But Co2 is very heavy, how does it get into the higher atmosphere?
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/12/2009 20:10

Man-made CO2 has minimal effect on climate change, claim global-warming skeptics


If the man-made-climate-change true-believers are correct, humans thoughtlessly contaminate the earth’s atmosphere each time they exhale.

Why? Because with each breath, humans expel a mouthful of carbon dioxide (CO2), the so-called bad-guy atmospheric gas blamed by environmental guru Al Gore and other climate-change Casandras for increasing global temperatures. (For the record, recent global surface temperatures have been going down, even as CO2 levels have gone up.)

So far, none of the global warmists who jetted into Copenhagen last week to attend the UN’s IPCC climate-change conclave has gone so far as to suggest that their fellow homo sapiens should breathe more sparingly lest the earth turn into a sauna and the polar caps melt.

http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2009m12d19-Manmade-CO2-has-minimal-effect-on-climate-change-claim-globalwarming-skeptics
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/12/2009 20:38

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
But Co2 is very heavy, how does it get into the higher atmosphere?

I would assume through mixing with other gases, turbulent sensible heat flux, although there may be other plausible explanations I have not considered or come across as yet.

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
If the man-made-climate-change true-believers are correct, humans thoughtlessly contaminate the earth’s atmosphere each time they exhale.

Why? Because with each breath, humans expel a mouthful of carbon dioxide (CO2), the so-called bad-guy atmospheric gas blamed by environmental guru Al Gore and other climate-change Casandras for increasing global temperatures. (For the record, recent global surface temperatures have been going down, even as CO2 levels have gone up.)

So far, none of the global warmists who jetted into Copenhagen last week to attend the UN’s IPCC climate-change conclave has gone so far as to suggest that their fellow homo sapiens should breathe more sparingly lest the earth turn into a sauna and the polar caps melt.

http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2009m12d19-Manmade-CO2-has-minimal-effect-on-climate-change-claim-globalwarming-skeptics

Just out of interest, given this is a thread about AGW science, what are you claiming or arguing for or against with regards to anthropogenic GW theory? What is your understanding of the role CO2 plays in the lower atmosphere? I'm curious, not having a go at you.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 21/12/2009 07:09

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is transparent to visible electromagnetic waves (light) but opaque to longer wavelength infra-red radiation (heat). Most of the energy from the sun that reaches the earth is in visible spectrum (that is it is light). When this radiation falls on the earth, much of it is absorbed by the surface (if it didn't, the earth would look like a white ball). The energy some of the energy absorbed by the surface is re-radiated, but this re-radiation is in the infra-red spectrum. Since CO2 is opaque to these waves, it absorbs this energy and heats up. As the CO2 heats up, it also heats up other gases in the atmosphere (by conduction) so the net effect is a general warming. Once the CO2 gets to the point of saturation, it stops warming such as now.

This is what is known as the "green house effect" because it is exactly the same mechanism that warms a green house, only in a green house, it is the clear glass (or plastic) that is transparent to visible light, but opaque to infra-red radiation. In some green-houses, the farmers pump Co2 into them to improve plant growth, up to 1000ppm.

The atmospheric green house effect has existed for almost as long as the Earth has been in existence. In fact, without this effect, the Earth would be far to cold for life as we know it to exist.
As a turf manager and avid gardener, I see the benefits of Co2 everyday.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 21/12/2009 11:51

That is all quite true Simmonsturf. However I still think that the theory that I concluded at the start of this year may hold true. That is this; all warming of this planet is from surfaces that are good at absorbing heat from sunlight and it is only over those surfaces that the extra heating of the air will take place with the aid the extra CO2. This heat is then redistributed all over the planet from the absorbant hot spots, but the amount of heat eminating from the hot spots will continue to improve with more CO2. One of these hot spots are of course Australia which will continue to suffer more than almost any other country from CO2 levels. Another hot spot is the northern lands of the Northern hemisphere in summer where long sunlight hours are increasing temps there in summer. However the key word is "summer" not winter, once the heating is lost due to snowcover and low sun the effects of CO2 are almost completly nulled. Its only the warmer summers that are really impacting on ice cap levels or Arctic sea ice. Places in the far north inland like Yakutsk that used to get only 3 weeks of warm summer are now getting 3 month of quite intense summer. This theory holds well with all observations all over the planet of land heating more than oceans and the Antarctic not really warming due to no sunlight absorbant surfaces in summer, and the gradual desertification of subtropical lands all over the globe including Australia.
Posted by: mobihci

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 21/12/2009 11:52

Originally Posted By: Nazdeck
Originally Posted By: mobihci
but where is quantity?

co2 being 380ppm, water vapour 40,000ppm or higher. you could consider co2 better mixed than water vapour, but quantity cannot be ignored.

The quantity of water vapour in the lower atmosphere is not evenly distributed, either vertically or horizontally, whereas CO2 is. In other words, the distribution of CO2 is overall homogenous, vertically and horizontally, while water vapour is heterogeneously distributed. In some regions, the lower atmosphere is very dry where it is plausible CO2 could contribute more significantly to terrestrial warming. In other regions, the concentration of water vapour may be 100 times higher hence the effects due to CO2 would be greatly diminished.

It also might be pertinent to consider the 8 to 12 ppm O3 in the stratospheric ozone layer, which absorbed most of the harmful incoming UV rays from the Sun.


this is why i said it is not 1%, i believe the figures i have most seen are the 70% mark for water vapour and the 20% mark for co2. oh but wait, there is a model for that too! hehe, but what a waste of time that is if they cant even agree on cloud coverage from the actual satellite data-



a closer look v time-








Posted by: Severely Tall

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 21/12/2009 12:36

Quote:
this is why i said it is not 1%, i believe the figures i have most seen are the 70% mark for water vapour and the 20% mark for co2. oh but wait, there is a model for that too! hehe, but what a waste of time that is if they cant even agree on cloud coverage from the actual satellite data


Problems with this statement are many:
1. Non-comparible periods.
2. Changing satellite derived data techniques.
3. Water measurements in the atmosphere are quite problematic due to surface moisture and the geode approximation...this has only been improved quite recently....hence the improvements found for modis.
Posted by: mobihci

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 21/12/2009 16:18

the trend in that graph is not of importance to this, it would be for another discussion about reflectivity etc, but it still gives us a general idea of cloud coverage and how that will be indicative of ALL water vapour measurements for the purposes of ir absorption calculation.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 21/12/2009 16:41

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
Once the CO2 gets to the point of saturation, it stops warming such as now.

So you believe that CO2 has reached a point where it can no longer absorb enough radiation to induce further warming to a significant degree? Have I understood you correctly?

Originally Posted By: mobihci
Originally Posted By: Nazdeck
Originally Posted By: mobihci
but where is quantity?
co2 being 380ppm, water vapour 40,000ppm or higher. you could consider co2 better mixed than water vapour, but quantity cannot be ignored.

The quantity of water vapour in the lower atmosphere is not evenly distributed, either vertically or horizontally, whereas CO2 is. In other words, the distribution of CO2 is overall homogenous, vertically and horizontally, while water vapour is heterogeneously distributed. In some regions, the lower atmosphere is very dry where it is plausible CO2 could contribute more significantly to terrestrial warming. In other regions, the concentration of water vapour may be 100 times higher hence the effects due to CO2 would be greatly diminished.

It also might be pertinent to consider the 8 to 12 ppm O3 in the stratospheric ozone layer, which absorbed most of the harmful incoming UV rays from the Sun.


this is why i said it is not 1%, i believe the figures i have most seen are the 70% mark for water vapour and the 20% mark for co2. oh but wait, there is a model for that too! hehe, but what a waste of time that is if they cant even agree on cloud coverage from the actual satellite data-

The figures which I presented concerning the warming contribution from CO2 can be calculated by anyone if they have the right information. In other words, they don’t require the use of expensive computer models to be obtained. The calculations are based fairly rudimentary physical laws for the atmosphere, and thus, in a sense, to question these estimates brings into question the laws themselves. Although all physical laws have a given range of circumstances within which they a valid and applicable, that they have withstood scrutiny from multiple angles in multiple situations gives credence to their robust nature.

I would therefore put emphasise on “range of validity” or “ball-park figures” rather than precise calculations. If you take an average of the estimates of global cloud cover presented by various sources you provided (62.9 percent), I would say that is reasonable. Roughly 60 percent, in other words, of the surface of the Earth is covered, spatially, by cloud cover (i.e. condensed water droplets) at any one time (ignoring optical depth and dissipation induced by incoming solar radiation).

As I understand it, there is somewhat of an overlap between the H2O and CO2 bands in the infrared region of the terrestrial spectrum. The peak in terrestrial absorption spectrum for the Earth is at roughly 9.7 um. The “atmospheric window” associated with this peak is between about 8 and 14 um. It is in this window (between these wavelengths) that long-wave thermal energy from the Earth can be emitted directly to space (on a clear-sky day). The most significant absorption peak (and bandwidth) for CO2 lies beyond the 8-to-14-um thermal atmospheric window. This means that H2O does in fact influence the ability of the CO2 to absorb outgoing heat energy (within and beyond this thermal atmospheric window). Thus the presence of clouds (air-borne liquid water) and moisture (water vapour) in the lower atmosphere will reduce CO2’s absorption of thermal heat energy. However in the absence of clouds, and probably more importantly water vapour (because clouds only influence CO2 absorption of thermal energy within the range of their optical depth and horizontal spatial distribution) CO2 is far more likely to have a heating effect. And the less humid it is closer the surface, the more enhanced this effect will be due to fossil fuel emissions (given the roughly exponential drop in pressure with altitude).
Posted by: mobihci

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 22/12/2009 01:12

this is the diagram of the various absorption bands-



factors to consider when calculating the change from one co2 level to another would have to be

1 the quantity of water vapour over the entire atmosphere, not just of various levels. the specific humidity always has a value as far as i have seen, even if it is small.

2 the quantity and type of clouds AND their function. it seems by some of the docs i have read that this is related to ocean phases or possibly even as svensmark suggests, high energy particles etc. if you use a radiation balance/budget equation of any type, you have already made and estimation on cloud cover and function.

3 when something is absorbed 100% there is nothing left of it to absorb, so inside the bands, quantity is directly related to influence. outside the bands or on that slope, the influence will be proportional to a percentage of each components quantity.

4 to calculate the human component of co2 would mean having the ability to separate natural from the man made, which i dont think has been done yet.
Posted by: Severely Tall

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 22/12/2009 08:21

Water Vapour is in the majority (and I mean 95%+) confined to the troposphere which simplifies the problem a bit.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 23/12/2009 07:57

VIP PAPER PEER REVIEWED

"From the University of Waterloo press release.


WATERLOO, Ont. (Monday, Dec. 21, 2009) - Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth’s ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.

In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs – compounds once widely used as refrigerants – and cosmic rays – energy particles originating in outer space – are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.

“My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century,” Lu said. “Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming.”

His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.

“Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000,” Lu said. “Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate.”

In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/st...ing/#more-14426
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 24/12/2009 08:27

The research, showing just what a sham / scam the claims of global warming due to rising CO2 levels really are, just continues to pour in.

From CO2 Science;
Holocene Fluctuations in Arctic Sea-Ice Cover

And a quote from Rich Apuzzo, Cincinnati Weather Examiner. [ Icecap ]
Quote:
No matter what the cause or causes, one thing is clear. We really don’t know how or why our climate changes the way it does. This is something that scientists are still trying to figure out...but nothing is “settled” except the fact that we just don’t know.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/12/2009 11:43

Satellite measurements show our quiet sun is cooling the upper thermosphere
26-12-2009

Data from the TIMED (Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics) mission are being used to understand the climate of the upper atmosphere. Credit: NASA
From NASA News.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/26/sa...ere/#more-14540
Posted by: Arnost

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 30/12/2009 10:27

One of the reasons why I chose my signature line is really nicely explained in this article. For anyone intending a career in a scientific field, it will be a worthwhile read...

Accept Defeat: The Neuroscience of Screwing Up
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 31/12/2009 10:27

Quote:
"For anyone intending a career in a scientific field, it will be a worthwhile read."..

I beg to differ, Arnost!`

For anyone who is trying to stretch their intellect and knowledge in any field, that article is a very worthwhile and intellectually stimulating alternative way of perhaps taking a new look at a project or an idea that has apparently failed to come off and would otherwise be seen as a failure.

That is an extremely interesting article.
Thanks.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 31/12/2009 12:15

LOL...

You are right! Any field. But it's not really "an alternative" way of approaching science or a project. It's pretty mainstream - in my days the Michelson / Morley experiment (the value of a negative result outcome)was a mandatory case study taught in science class. But unfortunately, negative outcomes tend to be lost or at least glossed over in any results oriented approach be it in science or business. And a results oriented approach - especially one driven by grants / business case - tends to deliver the sought results...

And once this starts to happen then confirmation bias also raises its head - and again the Millikan electron charge experiment was a case study taught highlighting the issue... see here for example.

And then there is the pressure to conform bias... The Challenger disaster assessment from Feynman highlights this in spades - management was given warnings about the o rings many times over, but they chose to ignore them and chose political expediency.

I particularly like the closing quote from Feynman:
Quote:
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/01/2010 18:55

No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 02/01/2010 13:29

Food for thought about CO2 from Alan Siddons
Quoted from the climate sceptics newsletter.

http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/

"Concentrated CO2 exposed to infrared will get somewhat warmer than everyday air. But this only proves that everyday air (99.96% of which is nitrogen, oxygen and argon) is more transparent to IR and less apt to be heated that way. Air molecules, CO2 included, initially acquire heat by contact with warmer surfaces. Via mutual collisions and convective transport, this heat gets spread around within an airmass.

To some slight degree, CO2 also has the option of acquiring heat by radiative transfer. But, rather ironically, it cannot radiatively transfer this heat to the nitrogen, oxygen and argon molecules which surround it because, as said, they are largely infrared-transparent. As a result, an excited CO2 molecule is obliged to share its heat just like the rest of them do, by bumping into other molecules. In short, there’s nothing special about CO2 in a real-world context. Outnumbered 2500 to 1, CO2’s energy is lost in a busy buzz of collisions, its radiative properties wasted.

Moreover, any heated gas radiates infrared — and in this case 99.96% of the gas consists of molecules other than CO2.

Yet no one seriously imagines that back-radiation from 99.96% of the air has a role in raising the earth’s surface temperature.

Only when CO2 comes up do we lose touch with reality.
Here’s a succinct point: Immersed in the vacuum of space, the earth has but one means of losing heat: radiation. And what does carbon dioxide do? It radiates".

Alan Siddons
Posted by: Vlasta

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/01/2010 00:43

According to the CIA's analysis detrimental global climatic changa threatens the stability of most nations . Canada will be hardest hit . The entire dominion from the Arctic to the 49th parallel will be under 150 feet of ice .

Ops not now , that was "scientific consensus" in the 1970's

Surely CIA has learned lessons after spending zillions on communist threat.

Change few characters in the Hitlers video and add names we dont even know about . And its not too far from the truth.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/24/why-climate-change-is-hot-hot-hot/
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/01/2010 11:34

Jeff Id in his blog "the Air Vent" [ CRU #3 – The next step ] has a crack at calculating the global temperature and global temperature anomaly trends using the GHCN [ Global Historical Climate Network ] stations.
He did the calculations in a few hours, something that apparently took Phil Jones of the CRU some 20 years, a super computer and $22 million in grants to achieve and then he, Jones, has been thoroughly caught out grossly manipulating the data.
Jeff Id readily admits that there are a huge number of points in there for discussion but his methods are there for all to see in stark contrast to CRU and GISS.

The comments following the post are as equally interesting as the post itself as it seems that a number of mathematically and statistically competent people are now looking at a whole range of mathematical and statistical methods to calculate the global temperature trends over the last century.
The common themes coming out of these efforts is the utterly disgraceful mess that the global temperature data is in, [ NCDC ] the manipulation of the data that has taken place and the cherry picking that is ongoing in eliminating stations on a huge scale and the selecting of stations with a very obvious warming bias.
And the complete lack of essential station information in the data base that is required to enable the right corrections ie; station altitude for just one such simple data requirement, to be applied to the data that is available.
The Russians have been scathing about the station selection as they claim that hundreds of Russian stations that show no warming trends have been eliminated from the data bases and only a few Russian stations with strong warming biases have been included in the GHCN data base.

The other constant theme is that every statistical and numerical method that is being used by a number of competent and recognised experts in the mathematical and statistical fields to analyse the global temperature data trends are finding only very minor warming trends at best and for most part just small rises and falls centred around a common global temperature over the last century and half.
There just does not seem to be indication from these analyses that there is any confirmation at all or any indication that supports the claims of CRU and GISS of significant and dramatic runaway increases in global temperatures over the last few decades.
ie; the claims of global warming and global temperature trend increases due to the rises in CO2 levels are completely null and void.

The other interesting point is that almost universally, the guys who are doing these analyses are becoming increasingly scathing and that is being polite, about the complete incompetence, the complete lack of any integrity of the CRU Team and the data integrity of the GHCN and utter lack of any attempt to place the global data on a thoroughly organised, researched and fully notated basis even though CRU, the GHCN and UHCN, NCDC and GISS have had many hundreds of millions of dollars in funding and some 20 years or more to get their house in order.

The climate science lid that CRU and GISS have kept very tightly closed to all except a very small in-group is now being lifted and the stink that is emerging will shake the this whole climate change , climate data thing to the very core.
And along with the destruction of much of the former climate science and the warmista ideology there will quite possibly also be a slowly evolving breakdown in trust in the political system in some countries and a massive back lash against the radical environmental groups who have grossly exaggerated and beat up this whole climate warming scam` into a apocalyptic prophecy that seeks to forecast the demise of much of mankind.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/01/2010 20:14

Lubos Motl, the Czech physicist, in his blog "The Reference Frame " does an analysis of "Warming trends in England from 1659"
Basically Motl is saying that, based on the recorded temperatures since 1659 [ Hadley, Central England Temperatures; Armagh Observatory; ] there is nothing at all unusual about the current temperature trends.
Quote:
But the warming trend in 1909-2008 (the fastest "modern" 100-year trend) was +0.87 °C per century. The warming trend in 1663-1762 was +0.86 °C per century which is not excessively different. ;-) The fastest cooling, 1718-1817, was by -0.59 °C per century. Note that there are no quotas: the positive and negative trends don't have to agree. In most cases, the maximum warming trends were faster than the fastest cooling trends. In some cases, namely the 10-year intervals, it was the other way around. Nothing should shock you here. They're pretty much random numbers.

Conclusions

The Central England data show nothing unusual about the evolution of current temperatures. And because there is really nothing special about Central England, it's reasonable to expect that no place in the world is experiencing anything unusual in the modern era, in comparison with other epochs since 1659.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 08/01/2010 21:13

Three links for those interested to take a look at this evening.

The first one is directly related to the BOM's very recent claim that the last decade in Australia was the hottest on record.
However BOM have made sure that particular "record" does not apply to the period before 1910
Warwick Hughes in his blog "Errors in IPCC science" raises some very valid points about this claim.

The second link is to E.M.Smith's "Chiefio" blog.
He calls it the "Bolivian Effect".
On the latest NASA November temperature anomaly map, the region around Bolivia which is landlocked and about half way down the western side of the South American continent has a notably high temp anomaly across that region.
Bolivia is situated mainly in the great Andes ranges and the country is very high in altitude across most of it's extent.
La Paz, the capital of Bolivia is situated at an altitude of between 3500 and 4000 metres [ 11500 ft to over 13,000 ft.] which makes it the highest capital in the world.
According to E.M.Smith, there has not been any thermometer data in the GHCN data base since 1990, 20 years ago.
[ apparently Bolivia is reporting but GHCN never includes the data because it is delivered a day or so after the monthly GHCN data update closes.]
So GHCN and GISS use "nearby" thermometers to calculate Bolivia's temp anomaly.
The "nearby" thermometers are about 1200 kms away located near the beach in Peru and in the hot steamy Amazon in the opposite direction.
And so GHCN and GISS now have a rather high temp anomaly right over Bolivia which of course is of considerable help with the global warming claim!

You really can't make some of this stuff up it is so illogical and corrupted and it borders on the point of insanity to imagine that any reasonable estimation of local temperature trends can be derived from this sort of totally corrupted data system.
But it is on the basis of this sort of data the politician's and the alarmists of the warmista ideology are prepared to bankrupt our global economy chasing the willo-wisp of global warming.

Increasingly Roy Spencer's UAH satellite based microwave system on the Aqua satellite is being referred to as about the only global temperature source that is trustworthy, open to all examination and knowingly free from any deliberate bias as a result of the openness.
However the very accurate calibration of the microwave unit is an absolute necessity if the data is to have any validity.
It is generally assumed that this calibration is done by matching the microwave unit data to surface temperature data but as we now are increasingly aware, surface temperature data is very badly corrupted in most instances.
Roy Spencer explains that the microwave unit is actually calibrated daily by an inbuilt system, the performance and characteristics of which the principal components have been very long established for many decades past.
"How the UAH Global Temperatures Are Produced"
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 11/01/2010 10:59

Roy Spencer of the Uni of Alabama's [ UAH ] satellite based global temperature analysis has another short article posted.
Some heavy reading for a layman but nevertheless a rather interesting analysis for those who like to bone up on their climate knowledge base.
And Spencer's analysis is derived from real and actual observations, not some airy fairy computations from a dodgy unverified computer program which is then promoted as fact, a point that Roy Spencer makes here.

Clouds Dominate CO2 as a Climate Driver Since 2000


And from Warwick Hughes blog" "Errors in IPCC science"

"Canberra Airport – rejected by Jones et al 1986 – pardoned in the 1990’s – now corrected (again) by UKMO"

Can anybody trust any surface temperature data whatsoever from any source that has any sort of affiliation or connection with the incestuous group that comprises the CRU , Hadley Centre, GISS, GHCN, NCDC, the UKMO and etc ever again?
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 11/01/2010 11:54

I keep on coming across these interesting items on the incredible ongoing changes that are being made to the raw global temperature data records.
It seems that in almost every case the temperatures are adjusted upwards by the various warmer biased climate data organisations listed in the above post.

This post below is from Lucy Skywalker's blog, a quite a well known blog but one I have not referred to before.
It is a comprehensive analysis on the differences in the "corrections" that are applied to the raw temperature data from various UK surface stations by the different climate data organisations.

"GISS Temperature Records for the Britis...own doorstep?"

Nearly all the reasons and methods used to make those "corrections" are still unexplained as the algorithms and methods of applying the corrections have never been and published and these same organisations have consistently refused to release the algorithms and methods to other scientists for a further analysis of the methods, something that is totally unacceptable in most other branches of science except it seems only in climate science where "you have to trust us" is the arrogant response of the main climate data organisations to the questioning proletariat.
And just to further murky the waters, a lot of the surface temperature data has been "corrected and homogenised" another couple of times as it is processed down the line from the raw data through two or three other climate data organisations before it is actually released for public scrutiny.

Try selling a business or company on the basis that the buying party can't do a full "due diligence", the examination of all it's business activities and financial accounts and see how far you get.
Yet on the basis of the claims of the above climate data organisations and without ANY due diligence on their claims, ours and other governments around the world are preparing to spend tens of billions of dollars on "mitigating" a minor atmospheric gas and putting massive new taxes on all energy generating systems, fuels and etc.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 17/01/2010 12:35

This whole climate change / global warming claims / AGW just keeps on getting murkier and murkier.
This time it is the US end of the global warming advocacy team.
The spotlight has switched to the apparent manner in which the NOAA, the Global Historical Climate Network [ GHCN ] and the USHCN data has been manipulated and massaged for the last 20 years or more all apparently in the direction of increasing the apparent global warming signals.
Earlier global and US temp recordings have been massaged down and later temp data has been consistently massaged up to give in a blatant attempt to give some claimed credence to the global warming claims.
Climategate: Leaked Emails Inspired Dat... is Ground Zero

E.M.Smith in his "Chiefio" blog also has some very strong comments on the gross manipulation of the data.
GHCN – Does “unadjusted” mean cooked?
Quote:
If all this talk about 4 different versions of the same data for the same location (Central Park) has your head swimming, just think on this: They are all held out as valid and correct by NOAA / NCDC. The same organization produces all of: GHCN “unadjusted”, GHCN “adjusted”, USHCN “corrected”, and USHCN Version2. They all are available for download now.

So exactly what “input data” are the right ones? You get to chose based on what ‘adjustments’ and ‘corrections’ you would like to have. And they are different from each other, often by several degrees. From this we are supposed to be excited about fractional degrees of change? There is much more than that in the adjustments…


Roger Pielke Jnr is the other half of the father / son team who runs his own web site;
He is a believer in global warming but not that CO2 is the primary driver of that warming so his very strong criticisms of the IPCC and its alarmists / catastrophist advocacy of global warming / climate change should be well noted.
In this case, the grossly alarmist and global warming advocate UK based "New Scientist" magazine has taken the IPCC to task for it's claims based on nothing more than a casual conversation reported by the NS, that the Himalayan Glaciers will be melted and gone by 2035.

New Scientist wants an Explanation and New Scientist Opinion

Pielke Jnr also points to other totally unsubstantiated, unpublished, non peer reviewed claims by the IPCC which have since moved over into political lore and on which are based the political and economic decisions that will severely affect our economy and our social structure.

And another post of Pielke Jnr again about the IPCC's ; Systematic Misrepresentation of the Science of Disasters and Climate Change
Posted by: Flying Binghi (2)

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 17/01/2010 17:02

Quote:
...the grossly alarmist and global warming advocate UK based "New Scientist" magazine has taken the IPCC to task for it's claims based on nothing more than a casual conversation reported by the NS, that the Himalayan Glaciers will be melted and gone by 2035...


Nah...can't be right.

i was just having a read of the mighty tome that informs the Oz gov of all things climate, and under 4.4.3. "High-consequence climate outcomes" ah discovers that the glaciers will disappear by 2035 referenced to WWF Nepal Program 2005. Knowing how well informed Garnaut is one can't doubt his research...in fact he even mentions the security challenge all this glacial melting will cause....






.




Posted by: Flying Binghi (2)

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 17/01/2010 17:11

If The Garnaut Climate Change Review were a document put out by an Oz public company, methinks ASIC would be asking the directors some serious questions....





.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 17/01/2010 21:37

To add to my post above on the corruption of the data and the false claims that are being made on global temperatures, Roger Pielke Snr, a very respected climate scientists has some pretty strong words to say about NASA GISS and James Hansen's press releases.

NASA GISS Inaccurate Press Release On The Surface Temperature Trend Data
Quote:
My comments below remain unchanged. Readers will note that Jim Hansen does not site or comment on any of the substantive unresolved uncertainties and systematic warm bias that we report on in our papers. They only report on their research papers. This is a clear example of ignoring peer reviewed studies which conflict with one’s conclusions.

And;

This statement perpetuates the erroneous claim that the data sources are independent [I welcome information from GISS to justify their statement, and will post if they do]. This issue exists even without considering any other concerns regarding their analyses.

I have posted a number of times on my weblog with respect to the lack of independence of the surface temperature data; e.g. see

Further Comment On The Surface Temperature Data Used In The CRU, GISS And NCDC Analyses

An Erroneous Statement Made By Phil Jones To The Media On The Independence Of The Global Surface Temperature Trend Analyses Of CRU, GISS And NCDC.


And to add some further info on the IPCC's completely erroneous and totally false claims on the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 that are now known to be based on a casual conversation with an Indian scientist and via one of the most radical global warming alarmist organisations, the World Wildlife Fund, further info from Bishop Hill's blog;
IPCC glaciers - some explanation
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 17/01/2010 21:53

Further info on the above IPCC's Himalayan Glacier claim debacle can be found in "Times on Line"
"World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown"
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/01/2010 15:22

The New Trend in Climate Alarmism
Dr David Evans
14 July 2009

Senator Steve Fielding recently asked the Climate Change Minister Penny Wong why human emissions can be blamed for global warming, given that air temperatures peaked in 1998 and began a cooling trend in 2002, while carbon dioxide levels have risen 5% since 1998. I was one of the four independent scientists Fielding chose to accompany him to visit the Minister.1
The Minister’s advisor essentially told us that short term trends in air temperatures are irrelevant, and to instead focus on the rapidly rising ocean heat content:

This is the new trend in climate alarmism. Previously the measure of global warming has always been air temperatures. But all the satellite data says air temperatures have been in a mild down trend starting 2002.2 The land thermometers preferred by the alarmists showed warming until 2006, but even they show a cooling trend developing since then.3 (Land thermometers cannot be trusted because, even in the USA, 89% of them fail siting guidelines that they be more than 30 meters from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source, and their data is forever being “corrected”.4)
Ocean temperatures were not properly measured until mid-2003, when the Argo network became operational.
Before Argo, ocean temperatures were measured with bathythermographs (XBTs)—expendable probes fired into the water by a gun from ships along the main commercial shipping lanes. Geographical coverage of the world’s oceans was poor, XBTs do not go as deep as Argo, and their data is much less accurate.5


http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/TrendInClimateAlarmismDavidEvans.pdf
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/01/2010 14:16

The full 111 page PDF of Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts paper on the entire surface station record is available from the SPPI site

SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS:
POLICY DRIVEN DECEPTION?


POLICY DRIVEN DECEPTION?

by Joseph D’Aleo & Anthony Watts | January 26, 2010

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely,
systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has
been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.
2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them
useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both
regionally and globally.
4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-
quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.
5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural
stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.
6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-
calibrated instrument upgrades further overstates warming.
7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed
longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.
8. Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make
heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.
9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has
only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.
10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in
compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly
diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a
warm bias in the surface temperature record.
11. NOAA and NASA, along with CRU, were the driving forces behind the systematic hyping of 20th-
century “global warming”.
12. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be
readily explained by natural factors like multidecadal ocean and solar changes.
13. Global terrestrial data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess
climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts.
14. An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS
and NCDC “chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a
vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”
15. Reliance on the global data by both the UNIPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP also requires a full
investigation and audit.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/01/2010 16:07

Originally Posted By: ROM
The full 111 page PDF of Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts paper on the entire surface station record is available from the SPPI site

7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed
longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.
8. Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make
heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.
10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in
compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly
diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a
warm bias in the surface temperature record.


Uah satellite records shows 80% of the warming trend shown by GISS and HADCRUT for the entire time period that UAH measures. There has been an instrument change for UAh in 1992, causing a step change in this year. Since 1992 Uah has shown more warming than HADCRUT surface record, and 90% of the warming of GISS. GISS shows higher warming because it includes the fast warming Arctic regions, whereas HADCRUT and Uah exclude them.

So when they say the satellite record diverges in a manner that is consistent with evidence of a warm bias, they forgot to point out that any possible warm bias consistent with satellite record is far smaler than the warm bias they claim.

Interesting enough an analysis of the stations that Anthony Watt's surface stations project says are well sited shows a slightly higher warming trend then for all stations. (link).
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/01/2010 20:30

Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/01/2010 21:23

Well Mike, using that "Skeptical science about Skeptic's science" site, you seem to think you have found a serious flaw in the conclusions arising from Anthony Watts / Joe D'Aleo and E. M. Smith's compendium so why don't you place those flaws before the public on say the widely read WUWT right in the heart of the skeptics camp where your finding of the flaws and the importance of them can be fully publicised ?

And which of the at least four versions of the GHCN / GISS or [ laugh! ] CRU station data are you using for your claims in this case?

You might even be right but somehow I think if you even quote your source as above you could watch everybody fall apart laughing.
And I have a feeling that Watts and possibly Jeff Id and maybe the Pielkes may be about to take Menne's paper apart.

There is a huge backlash just getting underway after the IPCC's voo doo science and corrupt claims revelations plus Climate-gate, Pachauri-gate and as now seems increasingly more likely, a GISS-gate and GHCN-gate as well when Congress and the Senate get their teeth into this.
Even amongst the MSM any so called "science" or what passes for science that is seen to have it's origins in the IPCC and it's associated climate science mafia is slowly but increasingly being viewed, rightly or wrongly, as being deliberately corrupted for a political agenda purposes and with straight out avarice now increasingly being seen to be playing a major role for the leading climate corruption players.

So post your findings and quote your source for the finding of the flaws on WUWT and we will watch with interest to see what happens next.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/01/2010 22:13

You ask, I provide. November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.

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 Consulafft, at
> >> Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers
> >> 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 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. Within a few years it is
> >> predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most
> >> coastal cities uninhabitable.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry, I neglected to mention that this report was from November
> >> 2, 1922 as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post.
> >> Nearly 88 years ago! But we're still here!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/yo...-icebergs-melt/
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/01/2010 23:15

From Inside and Out, Climate Panel Is Pushed to Change

There is growing pressure on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, from within and without, to change some practices to ensure the credibility of its future reports.

The latest push came on Monday in New Delhi, where leaders of countries that formed an influential bloc at last month’s Copenhagen climate talks were meeting to assess next steps. The Business Standard of India quoted Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of China’s National Development and Reform Commission, as calling for the panel’s next set of reports to contain a broader set of scientific viewpoints on evidence for global warming:

“We need to adopt an open attitude to scientific research and incorporate all views…. Scientists are waiting for the fifth assessment report and amongst us, we will enhance cooperation in the report to make it more comprehensive.”

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/from-inside-and-out-climate-panel-pushed-to-change/
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/01/2010 10:10

From Bob Tisdale's "Climate Observations"

"Illusions Of An Instrument Temperature Record With Complete Global Coverage"

My bold!
Quote:
OPENING NOTE: This is not a post about the accuracy of the instrument temperature record. It also is not about the methods researchers employ to infill missing data or to reconstruct sea surface temperatures.
This post is a complaint about the portrayal of compete global coverage of temperature measurements.


Bob Tisdale analysis the illusion created by NASA [ GISS ] that there has been a full and comprehensive global temperature coverage since 1880.
With Tisdale's usual very good graph and map coverage of the subject.
Quote:
What hit me was the total global coverage as the narrator said, “…1880, the year when precise temperature record keeping began…” NASA did not state that the image was a map of the precise global temperature anomalies for the year 1880. NASA did not state that the global coverage was complete. NASA implied both…at least to me they did. And someone who does not understand how sparse temperature measurements were in 1880, and in the decades that followed, would be led to believe that they were complete and “precise”.


More illusions and more conning of the public as to the real status of the actual long term global temperature measurements and data records on which the claims of recent global warming are based.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/01/2010 15:24

Originally Posted By: ROM
And I have a feeling that Watts and possibly Jeff Id and maybe the Pielkes may be about to take Menne's paper apart.



Well Watts has published an attempt to 'take Menne's paper apart'. Basically his only objection of any substance is that Mene took an early set of surface station data that was not complete and not quality controlled.

Mr Watts has had the complete data for quite a while now. In that time he has had the time to work with Joe Da'leo write a 111 page document about the results. And in the same time:

a) has not taken the few minutes* to compare temperature trends of good stations vers bad stations as Mene did, and show a result different to Mene;

or

b) has taken the few minutes to compare the temperature trends of the good stations with the bad stations, and decided for whatever reasons not to publish the result of this comparison.

As I have said so often, clearly either incompetent or dishonest.

Unless someone can anyone provide an alternative explanation for why Watts has not provided an updated version of Mene's analysis with the 'correct' data.

* I work as a data analyst. I am very confident that if I had all the data on hand I could do the analysis myself in about five minutes. Perhaps someone who does not regularly perform calculations on large dataset would take as much as a few hours.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/01/2010 17:05

Anthony Watts in the comments on one of his threads in the last 24 hours was asked about the Mennes paper.
He said that the publication of it had taken him by surprise but he indicated that both he and possibly one of the Pielkes would be considering a reply when the release of the compendium had settled down.
And he also gave due and friendly recognition to Mennes as well.
So we will wait and see.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/01/2010 17:20

It is obvious that there will be adverse warming effects from poorly sited such as many tarmac and air conditiooning vent etc affected sited screens.
And by siting from country to city. If this were not the case we may as well throw science out the window...It is obvious to a child...fair suck of the sauce bottle, mate!...And how can one compare global temps when they vary from 6,000 stations to 2,000 stations as one moves through the years...fair shake of the sauce bottle again mate...and they are all homoginsd like modern milk...fair squeeze of the sauce bottle mate...And the sites that are deleted are the least variation or negative tendency of temp in the main...fair whack of the sauce bottle mate...Wake up mate it is a big scam or at the least biased to the extreme in favour of the result one wants to try and prove a point!
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/01/2010 19:37

There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see!

Anthony Watts has a massively popular blog site which he only started in about 2007 and now has a hit ranking that puts him up amongst the top few percent of sites in the world.
He did not achieve that incredible world ranking by being as you have put it; either incompetent or dishonest.

The blogsphere is a very discerning and a very hard forum and those who do not measure up in ethics, honesty and intelligence are very quickly found wanting and dumped.
Anthony Watts has some of the world's senior scientists from a number of different and diverse disciplines commenting on his blog and those guys don't have to comment there if they don't wish too, nor do they tolerate fools easily nor do they freely comment just anywhere and everywhere.

By the way, what is the ranking of your blog, Mike?
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/01/2010 22:57

From WUWT

This is written by "the incompetent and dishonest" Anthony Watts.
It details the circumstances that Mennes and the NCDC headed by a CRU / GISS Team member Tom Karl, hijacked the information that Watt's surface station volunteers had been collecting and published the paper that is using to accuse Watts of "incompetency and dishonesty".

The NCDC and Mennes published this paper using Watts data without ever notifying Watts that they had a paper in preparation and were going to submit it and publish it.

I really do wonder just who is the most dishonest and incompetent and dishonorable amongst all of this sad lot and I will leave it at that.


Quote:
On November 10th, 2009, I sent a reply letter via Federal Express to Mr. Karl, advising him that we would like to collaborate, and offered to include NCDC in our paper.. In that letter I also reiterated my concerns about use of the preliminary surfacestation data (43% surveyed) that they had, and spelled out very specific reasons why I didn’t think the results would be representative nor useful.

We all waited, but there was no reply from NCDC to our reply to offer of collaboration by Mr. Karl from his last letter. Not even a “thank you, but no”.

Then we discovered that Dr. Menne’s group had submitted a paper to JGR Atmospheres using my preliminary data and it was in press. This was a shock to me since I was told it was normal procedure for the person who gathered the primary data the paper was based on to have some input in the review process by the journal.

NCDC uses data from one of the largest volunteer organization in the world, the NOAA Cooperative Observer Network. Yet NCDC director Karl, by not bothering to reply to our letter about an offer he initiated, and by the journal not giving me any review process opportunity, extends what Dr. Roger Pielke Senior calls “professional discourtesy” to my own volunteers and my team’s work. See his weblog on the subject:


Quote:
However, it is very important to point out that the Menne et al 2010 paper was based on an early version of the surfacestations.org data, at 43% of the network surveyed. The dataset that Dr. Menne used was not quality controlled, and contained errors both in station identification and rating, and was never intended for analysis. I had posted it to direct volunteers to so they could keep track of what stations had been surveyed to eliminate repetitive efforts. When I discovered people were doing ad hoc analysis with it, I stopped updating it.


Quote:
As for the Menne et all 2010 paper itself, I’m rather disturbed by their use of preliminary data at 43%, especially since I warned them that the dataset they had lifted from my website (placed for volunteers to track what had been surveyed, never intended for analysis) had not been quality controlled at the time. Plus there are really not enough good stations with enough spatial distribution at that sample size. They used it anyway, and amazingly, conducted their own secondary survey of those stations, comparing it to my non-quality controlled data, implying that my 43% data wasn’t up to par. Well of course it wasn’t! I told them about it and why it wasn’t. We had to resurvey and re-rate a number of stations from early in the project.


Quote:
If doing an independent stations survey was important enough for NCDC to do to compare to my 43% data now for their paper, why didn’t they just do it in the first place?



And Pielke Snr, a very respected scientist involved in global climate research has some very strong words about the complete lack of ethics seen here.

Quote:
We will discuss the science of the analysis in a subsequent post and a paper which is being prepared for submission. However, this post is about the process of compromising the standard scientific method, similar to what was revealed in several of the CRU e-mails. This same culture exists at NCDC under the direction of Tom Karl.

The publication of the Menne et al 2010 paper violates the professional courtesy that is standard practice by other scientific groups. We had even offered them co-authorship on our papers, so that we can benefit from their scientific expertise and they can benefit from ours. They refused.

This failure by NCDC to honor professional standards is just another example of the lack of accepted professional standards at this federal climate laboratory. They should have joined us in a paper, or, as an appropriate alternative, waited until we published and then complete their analysis.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/01/2010 07:46

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
It is obvious that there will be adverse warming effects from poorly sited such as many tarmac and air conditiooning vent etc affected sited screens.


The temperature trend is about the anomaly and the trend. Siting a station poorly will have zero effect on this. Moving it will.

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)

And how can one compare global temps when they vary from 6,000 stations to 2,000 stations as one moves through the years


Its called area averaging. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/01/2010 07:47

Originally Posted By: ROM
There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see!

Anthony Watts has a massively popular blog site which he only started in about 2007 and now has a hit ranking that puts him up amongst the top few percent of sites in the world.
He did not achieve that incredible world ranking by being as you have put it; either incompetent or dishonest.

The blogsphere is a very discerning and a very hard forum and those who do not measure up in ethics, honesty and intelligence are very quickly found wanting and dumped.
Anthony Watts has some of the world's senior scientists from a number of different and diverse disciplines commenting on his blog and those guys don't have to comment there if they don't wish too, nor do they tolerate fools easily nor do they freely comment just anywhere and everywhere.

By the way, what is the ranking of your blog, Mike?


Well the evidence won't prove Watts right. But maybe his popularity will?
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/01/2010 07:56

Right, lets have one site per continent...that will give us a correct mean global temp anomoly right Mike!
Lets' change the site nuimbers downwards grossly, and select just the stations that prove our point...that will make a good mean correct global mean temp anomoly right, Mike!?
And lets tarmac the sites during the period studied and add air conditioning vents and garbage during the study...that will make a good correct mean global temperature anomoly, right, Mike!?
And, lets add all sorts of adjustments to make it all look as we wish...that will make a good correct mean global temperature anomoly, right, Mike!?
And then lets homoginise the stations so that rural and city are combined together in many areas, and then we can't see the difference between rural and city & see that the city trend anomolies are becoming greater due to urban warming, etc, etc, etc!
Sorry, I just don't buy your "stories", Mike!
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/01/2010 08:18

My kids are now watching a kids show called Rory the Racing Car and I couldn't believe my ears when I heard them show how to make bio-fuels using a song and then proceeding to say how great it was for the planet. Talk about brain-washing. The kids then got a lesson as to why it is bad for the food supply of our planet, people starving and so on. By the way, the show is out of the UK.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/01/2010 10:38

Well it looks like Mennes and the NCDC's Tom Karl, CRU/ GISS Hockey Team member are about to come unstuck with their paper.
It seems that from a number of comments there are a couple of simple basic flaws in their paper one of which at least is when homogenisation is applied to the surface stations during the analysis.

I suspect that this paper will itself sink into oblivion very quickly except that the complete lack of ethics and the arrogant fashion that Mennes and Karl have gone about this in hijacking the non quality controlled, volunteer collected data and then interpreting this data and publishing [ without any notification to Watts or the volunteers ] in a way that seems to deliberately try and denigrate the work being done on verifying the surface station situation by Anthony Watts and his volunteers will in the end backfire very badly on the NCDC and Tom Karl and maybe Mennes as well.
The Team seem to be totally impervious as does a poster or two on here, to the rapidly changing shift in sentiment towards the Great Global Warming Scam.
In his constitutionally required annual State of The Union address to the Congress and Senate yesterday, Obama was cat called and a loud rumble of dissent and laughter was heard when Obama stated that there was overwhelming evidence of climate change.

The public climate for climate change / global warming is shifting and shifting fast and it is going to get very cold for those warmista ideologists who can never bring themselves to admit that they have been conned in a huge way.

And the comments below are from another researcher who is involved with the surface station survey.

Quote:
Menne, et al. performed a very clear, concise analysis that, among other things, demonstrated poorly sited stations did not meaningfully deviate from good sites (or “pristine” sites if you include the comparison to the admittedly brief USCRN series). Now, given that the sample relies on 43% of non-QA’d data should we consider the science settled? Of course not. But the finding is significant and worthy of publication. This is how science and the peer review process works. At the very least, it provides an opportunity for Watts, et al. to reproduce the analysis using a larger sample size, arrive at alternative conclusions, and have those findings published.

Weeeelllll, let’s put it this way. Dr. Menne’s “very clear, concise analysis” is about to get the pins knocked out from under it. Something that might have been avoided had he accepted Anthony’s invite. It turns out he failed to perform a vital part of the analysis, and the results are glaring: poorly sited stations do indeed meaningfully deviate from good sites.

At the very least, it provides an opportunity for Watts, et al. to reproduce the analysis using a larger sample size, arrive at alternative conclusions, and have those findings published.

There will be “alternative conclusions”, all right. And they will not be due to the larger size of the sample. (Although the earlier sample was rather poor, not quality-controlled, and did not separate airports and wastewater plants.)
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/01/2010 11:30

And another of the alarmists favorite catastrophes looks like it is being called for what it is, just another desperate attempt to frighten and panic the populace to achieve an agenda!
Floating Islands
An analysis of the claims that forecast catastrophic rates of rise in sea levels are about inundate the Pacific and ocean islands around the world.

Nils Axel Morner, another leading world sea level researcher has also completely dismissed these claims such as the Maldives which he has extensively studied, being inundated as just so much alarmist propaganda without a skeric of science backing to uphold the claims.
A lot of these claims come from activist environmental organisations and have no science backing whatsoever but have been taken up [ again ] by the IPCC and the MSM and promoted as gospel.

And interestingly, like Axel Morner and other sources I have read, Willis Eschenbach also quotes data that says the slow long term rise in Sea levels of a bit less than 3 ms / year has slowed down in the last half decade.

Axel Morner and a couple of other sources, Bob Tisdale also assert that there are quite significant very long term differences in the rate of SL rise and even falls between the different Ocean basins.
Some of these changes as in the Indian Ocean have been quite abrupt and quite large and have then stabilised and the SL's have remained constant for a couple of decades and all for totally unknown reasons.

Just another one of the unsolved puzzles the planet keeps on throwing in our face
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/01/2010 15:12

Some interesting commentary on Watt's failure to release an analysis showing trends for what his project says are good stations compared to bad stations, at Deltoid. (link)

Two points are of particular interest:

Anthony has promised that this analysis would be provided when a certain percentage of stations had been surveyed. Something like a year ago. This is documented by in an archive copy of one of Anthony's blog postings.

Anthony has been a vocal part of the crowd that demand open data. He has splashed private emails of scientists through his blog repeatedly. Yet when some scientists take his data and do an analysis on it he claims that this is a breach of ethics.

Perhaps we could call this episode 'Wattagate'
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/01/2010 17:19

ST, you seem to have forgotten the 32,000 scientists and researchers that have signed the Oregon Petition including 9000 with PhD's.
Nor it seems that you have caught up with the fact that a number of very prominent IPCC scientists who were classed as strong believers in the CO2 induced global warming are now saying it is time for a massive reform of or even a dissolution of the IPCC and furthermore some of them are now saying that the views and science results from so called skeptical scientists must be also be fully considered in any further research.
They have been shocked by the revelations that are continuing to emerge from the IPCC and CRU and GISS and the NCDC on the deliberately corrupted data and warmista advocacy bias that is being revealed on a near daily basis.
They, like rats and some very big rats indeed, are abandoning the doomed IPCC, CRU, GISS ship while it still just afloat and before it sinks permanently.


And another revealing article from Roy Spencer, head of the UAH's satellite based microwave global temperature analysis division which is now regarded by many as the only unbiased and trustworthy global temperature data organisation left.

Evidence for Natural Climate Cycles in t...Reconstructions

Quote:
The Logical Absurdity of Some Climate Sensitivity Arguments

This demonstrates one of the absurdities (Dick Lindzen’s term, as I recall) in the way current climate change theory works: For a given observed temperature change, the smaller the forcing that caused it, the greater the inferred sensitivity of the climate system. This is why Jim Hansen believes in catastrophic global warming: since he thinks he knows for sure that a relatively tiny forcing caused the Ice Ages, then the greater forcing produced by our CO2 emissions will result in even more dramatic climate change!

But taken to its logical conclusion, this relationship between the strength of the forcing, and the inferred sensitivity of the climate system, leads to the absurd notion that an infinitesimally small forcing causes nearly infinite climate sensitivity(!) As I have mentioned before, this is analogous to an ancient tribe of people thinking their moral shortcomings were responsible for lightning, storms, and other whims of nature.

This absurdity is avoided if we simply admit that we do not know all of the natural forcings involved in climate change. And the greater the number of natural forcings involved, then the less we have to worry about human-caused global warming.

The IPCC, though, never points out this inherent source of bias in its reports. But the IPCC can not admit to scientific uncertainty…that would reduce the chance of getting the energy policy changes they so desire.
Posted by: Locke

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/01/2010 17:41

Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
Some interesting commentary on Watt's failure to release an analysis showing trends for what his project says are good stations compared to bad stations, at Deltoid. (link)

Two points are of particular interest:

Anthony has promised that this analysis would be provided when a certain percentage of stations had been surveyed. Something like a year ago. This is documented by in an archive copy of one of Anthony's blog postings.

Anthony has been a vocal part of the crowd that demand open data. He has splashed private emails of scientists through his blog repeatedly. Yet when some scientists take his data and do an analysis on it he claims that this is a breach of ethics.

Perhaps we could call this episode 'Wattagate'


Now your just being plain deceitful Mike. There has been a response up on his website for the past couple of days which it would appear you and quite a number of others have conveniently ignored.

The data from his surfacestations project has been available which is why Menne was able to put together a research paper using only 43% of the stations even when warned the data he was using had not yet been QC'd.

One thing that struck me and a lot of other people with the Menne paper is how the result from 69 stations someone managed to match so precisely the result from the other 1100 or so poorly sited stations. Given the tiny number of good stations the absurdity of the closeness of the 2 results is readily apparent. Unless of course he used homogenised data which surprise surprise he did.

For anyone else who is reading these forums who does actually believe in checking things before they post, head over to WUWT for Anthony's response to the Menne paper.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/01/2010 21:49

There just seems to be no end to revelations on the depths of scientific depravity that the IPCC has stooped too.

Not only did the IPCC source a number of completely unsubstantiated non science based articles from the activist environmental organisation the World Wildlife Fund and then claim they were peer reviewed articles but now Donna Laframboise's blog "There is No Frakking "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming, the same blog where she revealed the IPCC's duplicity in using WWF propaganda as the basis for many of it's "peer reviewed" claims, but she now lists all the references to the over the top environmental activist Green Peace organisation's propaganda that the IPCC has also incorporated in it's AR4 report as peer reviewed science.
Like the WWF propaganda, this is the same propaganda on which the IPCC has based many of it's claims of a catastrophic warming of the planet is inevitable unless we reduce our standards of living quite drastically by spending trillions of dollars to reduce CO2 by a few parts per million.

Furthermore she has a whole list of environmental agitprop activists who have no scientific qualifications that the IPCC appointed as lead authors for some chapters in the AR4.

Of course Prof. Roger Pielke Snr, one of the world's leading climate researchers but a luke warmer, [ he believes that mankind has and is changing the global climate but CO2 has little to do with it. ] was also proposed by the US government as a lead author but the IPCC rejected his appointment.
I no longer wonder why!
With the venal leadership the IPCC has had they certainly would not want an honest lead author in there to mess up their agenda.

The quicker the IPCC is dissolved the better for everybody concerned particularly for the integrity of climate science whose reputation is already in tatters and it will become a discipline that only the most desperate will touch in the future if ongoing revelations of similar fraudulent activities based on the non scientific and baseless environmental activist and advocacy sources continues to emerge.

And this is the same IPCC organisation and the same people on whose advice and claimed peer reviewed science the naive and scientifically illiterate KRudd government is basing all of their claims that an ETS is an absolute necessity for Australia and the world to save us from a catastrophe arising out of increasing CO2 levels and to reduce Australia's CO2 output to save the planet from a 2C degree rise by 2100.

Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 30/01/2010 18:10

When it comes to global warming and the forecasts for the future, particularly the forecasts of that self styled ultimate authority on global warming, the IPCC, we never see the viewpoints of people and bloggers and just occasionally the media from other parts of the world that are not regarded as western countries.
So from the Indian paper OPEN which has a article that realy tears into the whole global warming claim and the IPCC and Pachauri.

OPEN has another very interesting forecast from the IPCC, similar to the glacier melt claims and one that I have never seen mentioned in the western media or blogs, and that is that 20% of Bangladesh will be under water by 2050.

And the real situation;
Quote:

Another total lie has been that the Sunderbans in Bangladesh are sinking on account of the rise in sea level. The IPCC claimed that one-fifth of Bangladesh will be under water by 2050. Well, it turns out this is an absurd, unscientific and outrageous claim. According to scientists at the Centre for Environmental and Geographical Information Services (Cegis) in Dhaka, its surface area appears to be growing by 20 sq km annually. Cegis has based its results on more than 30 years of satellite imagery. IPCC has not retracted this claim. As far as they are concerned, Bangladesh is a goner by 2050, submerged forever in the Bay of Bengal.


And the view of the future of the carbon trading market from one Indian perspective;
Quote:
The fallout of Climategate is slowly but surely unfolding right where it hurts a large number of special interests—in the field of business. Yes, the carbon trading business is now in the line of fire. Under a cap-and-trade system, a government authority first sets a limit on emissions, deciding how much pollution will be allowed in all. Next, companies are issued credits, essentially licences to pollute, based on how large they are, and what industries they work in. If a company comes in below its cap, it has extra credits which it may trade with other companies, globally.

Post Climategate, this worldwide trade, estimated at about $30 billion in 2006, is finding few takers. It is under attack following the renewed uncertainty over the role of human-generated CO2 in global warming. In the US, which never adopted any of this to begin with, there is a serious move now to finish off the cap-and-trade regime globally. It’s a revolt of sorts. Six leading Democrats in the US Congress have joined hands with many Republicans to urge the Obama Administration to back off from the regime.

The collapse of the international market for carbon credits, a direct fallout of Climategate, has already sent shudders down many spines in parts of the world that were looking forward to making gains from it. It was big business, after all, and Indian businesses were eyeing it as well. In fact, Indian firms were expected to trade some $1 billion worth of carbon credits this year, and with the market going poof, they stand to lose quite some money (notional or otherwise).
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 30/01/2010 22:11

Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen

The first blog after the story;
Kevin Kirchman wrote:
The Central England Temperature record, starting in 1659, is the longest unbroken instrumental temperature record in the world. A Scottish chemist, Dr. Wilson Flood, collected and analyzed the 351-year Central England temperature record.

He states:
"Summers in the second half of the 20th century were warmer than those in the first half and it could be argued that this was a global warming signal. However, the average CET summer temperature in the 18th century was 15.46 deg C while that for the 20th century was 15.35 deg C. Far from being warmer due to assumed global warming, comparison of actual temperature data shows that UK summers in the 20th century were cooler than those of two centuries previously."

Michael Mann in a Climategate email to Phil Jones of CRU and Gavin Schmidt of NASA wrote: “As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, it’s about plausibly deniable accusations.”

The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia profited at least $20 million in "research" grants from the Team’s activities.

The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 03/02/2010 06:44

Heaps of evidence against AGW and provided by a scientist... now I wait for the natural climate change deniers to shoot him down as a shoddy scientist as they do every time...


The Science of Global Warming
in Perspective

The temperature of the atmosphere is not determined by the amount of heat entering it nor by the amount of heat leaving it but by an equilibrium between the two which nature establishes and humans cannot comprehend.

Greenhouse gasses saturated their absorption a long time ago, which means adding more such gasses does nothing. And equations for calculating heat do not apply for saturation. But to pretend otherwise, a fudge factor was contrived for fake calculations. The so-called settled science is nothing but a fudge factor.


http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 03/02/2010 21:18

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
Heaps of evidence against AGW and provided by a scientist... now I wait for the natural climate change deniers to shoot him down as a shoddy scientist as they do every time...


The Science of Global Warming
in Perspective

The temperature of the atmosphere is not determined by the amount of heat entering it nor by the amount of heat leaving it but by an equilibrium between the two which nature establishes and humans cannot comprehend.

Greenhouse gasses saturated their absorption a long time ago, which means adding more such gasses does nothing. And equations for calculating heat do not apply for saturation. But to pretend otherwise, a fudge factor was contrived for fake calculations. The so-called settled science is nothing but a fudge factor.


http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html

The higher we go into the atmosphere, the less long-wave heat energy there is, while the volume in which this radiation can be absorbed increases. According to the Ideal Gas Law, p*V = n*R*T, if the volume increases and the pressure decreases, the temperature must also increase. This does not happen. The alternatives are that latent/sensible heat is extracted (re-radiated), and/or n (the number of moles of CO2) increases. Given the density of the atmosphere drops exponentially with increasing altitude, the former (re-radiation) is more likely to occur.

After traversing a given distance through the lower atmosphere from the surface, only a small fraction of the infrared heat energy absorbed by CO2 originating at the surface remains to continue towards space. As the concentration of CO2 increases, the distance traversed becomes smaller, which means radiant heat energy reaches a lower and lower altitude than previously, making it more and more difficult from this energy to be re-radiated towards space. In other words, more and more of this infrared heat energy is retained by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. While other gas molecules in the lower atmosphere absorb outgoing long-wave radiation, like CO2, they do so within a given range of infrared bandwidths. Therefore, CO2 will absorb radiant heat energy within a given range of infrared bandwidths which correspond to its rotational, translational, bond angle and bond length modes of vibration. If there is radiant energy that does not correspond to these modes of vibration, CO2 will not interact with it.

CO2 absorbs the vast majority of radiant energy originating at the surface within in its range of infrared bandwidths. Opacity (or saturation) refers to the distance described above that radiant heat energy traverses before heating becomes negligible. That said, very little of the radiation at the wavelengths at which CO2 absorbs reaches space. I would be glad to be corrected, but that is how I understand it works.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 05/02/2010 22:39

In the interests of avoiding jumping to conclusions, I will post this:

Given the climate and weather are highly-dynamic and complex non-linear systems, I am not to sure about assuming the temperature will always rise as a result of increasing CO2, and that it is a constant and proportional response. I would say the interpretation of whether it is warming or cooling depends significantly on the timescales used, and the context used in referring to those timescales.

Regarding cloud formation and cosmic rays/sunlight, at this stage, from what I can gather:

=> Reduced solar activity leads to increased cosmic rays.
=> Increased solar activity leads to reduced cosmic rays.
=> Cosmic rays enter Earth’s Atmosphere and react with air molecules.
=> Reactions Produce Condensation Nuclei required for cloud formation.

However, at the present, solar activity involves:

=> 11-year solar cycle flux (solar constant) is increasing (per long-term record);
=> Sunspots cycle has reached an 11-year low (as far as I can tell);
=> Overall magnetic flux should therefore be increasing, implying a trend of reducing cloud cover.

The influences of the Sun [Milankovitch Factors and Solar Forcing], are linked to the Stefan-Boltzmann Response, which involves variables such as incoming solar radiation, outgoing terrestrial radiation, water vapour, planetary albedo and temperature. To therefore attribute the majority of global temperature variations to Solar Activity without considering the dependence of these variations on prevailing atmosphere conditions would seem misleading. As the climatic response to Solar Forcing would be dependent on the kinetic behaviour of molecules in the atmosphere, it seems plausible that Solar Activity could induce delayed climatic conditions resulting from variations in the Milankovitch Factors. This could potentially explain some inconsistencies or anomalies in historically-reconstructed records of past climate behaviour (dating +20,000 years ago, prior to the Younger Drias roughly 12,800 years ago), and improve the “range of validity” of model projections.

There is also an additional potential explanation for longer-term climate behaviours caused by deviations of the Earth’s orbital from the ecliptic plane, which, by default, is define as being 0 degrees.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

A more detailed explanation of the intricacies of the Milankovitch Cycle follows (if you consider this too repetitious, then continue to the next section on the stellar solar plasma):

In terms of direct and diffuse radiant energy, the Milankovitch Cycles are quite important. They are essentially concerned with the changes in the Earth’s precession of equinox, tilt and orbital eccentricity. The precession of the equinox, where the Earth’s orbit moves around the Sun like a hula-hoop moves around a person’s waist, has a cycle of one 360-degree twist of a hula-hoop every 19 to 23,000 years. In the past 800,000 years it has been through it slightly over 34 cycles. We have just gone through the 34th in the last few 1000 years. It precession of equinox has a secondary cyclic period of anywhere between 100 to 200,000 years.

The Earth’s tilt changes, variably, between approximately 21.6 and 24.5 degrees of central. It has a primary period of about 41,000 years, again variably, and a secondary period of 150 to 200,000 years. It is currently tilted at about 23.4 degrees, and decreasing. It shouldn’t go any lower, for this primary period, than around 22.25 degrees. That should take another 15 to 17,000 years. It’s also completing another secondary period, which should finish within 100,000 years from now.

Again variably, the Earth’s orbital eccentricity also changes. It has a primary period of 95,000 years, a secondary period of 130,000 years, and a tertiary period of the combined primary and secondary periods of 413,000 years, making it all the more complicated. We are currently finishing a primary period, will soon begin a secondary period, and have almost completed a tertiary period. Our current orbital eccentricity (deviation from mean orbital distance from the Sun) is about 0.016709.

The precession of the equinox has a primary period with characteristics of a trigonometric wave function (sine/cosine function), with a somewhat sharp amplitude. This “wave function” is also a wave function in itself, variably moving like that of a seismometer. The tilt primary period “wave function” has the same characteristic, only it moves in and out on itself rather than up and down. This in and out movement is that of the secondary wave function.

The orbital eccentricity “wave function” has slightly different characteristics. Its tertiary period moves up and down like that of recorded sunspot cycle activities. Variations in the Earth’s orbit through time have and will continue to cause changes in the quantity and distribution of visible (and other solar radiation) reaching the Earth’s surface.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

However, I would reemphasise the point that current climate conditions also depend on the state of the atmosphere when interacting with incoming solar energy. Given the solar output varies by roughly 0.1 percent over the duration of an average 11.4-year sunspot cycle, such small deviations would suggest other factors besides the Sun’s direct output affect weather and climate on Earth. An analysis of the solar output presents additional clues when we consider:

1. The diminishing strength of the solar output in the visible region of the solar spectrum with distance from the Sun.
2. The strength of atmospheric winds in the atmospheres of the larger outer planet of the Solar System, assuming they receive the vast majority of their energy in the visible region of the Sun’s spectrum (contradicts point 1).
3. The speed of the stellar solar plasma (“solar wind”) increases with distance from the Solar Surface (photosphere). This is consistent with a constant (positive) voltage gradient (drop in voltage) with distance from the Sun (the Sun being an anode [positively-charged object]), suggesting much of the energy of the solar output is in dark-current (non-luminous) form; this would also go some way towards explaining point 2.
4. Of the total amount of solar and terrestrial radiation absorbed by both the atmosphere and surface (492.88 W/m^2), approximately 72.25 W/m2 is absorbed directly by the atmosphere (by molecular nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) at wavelengths less than 0.2 um, by ozone (O3) from 0.2 to 0.3 um, by clouds (when present) and water vapour (H2O) to 0.9 um, and by clouds (again, when present), H2O and CO2 to 2.7 um) (source). Notably, an atmospheric window exists between 0.3 and 1.1 um in the UV, visible and near-IR regions.
5. Gamma rays and X-rays (which are beyond the ultraviolet region) are almost completely absorbed by N2 and O2 in the upper atmosphere (source).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Returning to the influence of CO2, according to Huntington, T. G., (2006), Journal of Hydrology 319: 83-95, there is evidence for an intensification of the water cycle. This intensification is implied by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation for the atmosphere. When this relation was modelled, it suggested there would be a slight increase in precipitation per degree Kelvin rise in the surface air temperature.

Among other things, it points out that precipitation over land has increased during the 20th century, between 1900 and 1998, by 2% on a globally-averaged basis.

In a table summarising trends at the end of the paper, the follow were reported:

=> Precipitation increased during the 20th century, regionally and globally.
=> Runoff increased during the 20th century and latter half of the 20th century, regionally and globally.
=> Tropospheric water vapour increased during the 20th century, regionally.
=> There was no change in cloudiness.
=> Tropical Storm frequency and intensity did not change.
=> Floods either increased regionally, in the 20th century and latter half of the 20th century, or there was no change.
=> Droughts increased, regionally, in the 20th century and latter half of the 20th century.
=> Soil moisture increased in the 20th century and latter half of the 20th century, regionally.
=> The Seasonal glacier mass balance increased in the latter half of the 20th century, globally.
=> Pan evaporation in the latter half of the 20th century decreasing, regionally.
=> And actual evapotranspiration in the latter half of the 20th century increased, regionally.

Here is a little assessment of the above, point-by-point on my part:

=> The overall temperature of the oceans is increasing (more precipitation, less pan evaporation).
=> Precipitation results in runoff (more precipitation).
=> More evapotranspiration leads to higher levels of water vapour in the lower atmosphere.
=> No change in cloudiness (more moisture probably translates into more precipitation rather than more clouds; and as indicated previously, increased quantities of condensation nuclei result from increased quantities of inbound cosmic rays). In other words, increasing precipitation implies the moisture-holding capacity of the lower atmosphere is being exceeded more regularly.
=> Tropical Storm frequency and intensity did not change (might be explained by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation).
=> Floods either increased regionally, in the 20th century and latter half of the 20th century, or there was no change (see 2% increase in precipitation, 1900-1998).
=> Droughts increased, regionally, in the 20th century and latter half of the 20th century (probably correlated with the heterogeneous distribution of water vapour in the lower atmosphere).
=> Soil moisture increased in the 20th century and latter half of the 20th century, regionally (increased runoff likely translates into higher levels of soil moisture).
=> The Seasonal glacier mass balance increased in the latter half of the 20th century, globally (unsure about what is causing this trend, though it could be related to surface albedoes and reduced humidity in high-altitude regions).

I would stress there is still substantial uncertainty in the trends expressed above.

What does this have to do with CO2? It implies the response of the hydrological cycle to changes in CO2 levels is highly complex and non-linear.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

If we assume CO2 is the second-most influential of greenhouse gases on surface air temperatures, then why, during high-temperature, low-humidity heatwaves is the surface air temperature so high?

This raises some relevant questions about just what is causing the heating, remembering the actual “greenhouse effect” is a phenomenon of the atmosphere, not the surface, i.e. the exchange of heat energy between gases causing a warming of the lower atmosphere. I believe the transfer of sensible between gas molecules plays an important part in this phenomenon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The impression I get from the information coming out about global warming in some media precincts, which seems to have been galvanised by ill sentiment, that there is a severe degree is misinterpretation, misrepresentation and, probably most critically, misunderstanding of what is actually indicated by the raw (quality-controlled) scientific evidence for and against the hypothesis.

I have found that it is quite easy to become substantially influenced by claims containing subtle degrees of exaggeration or distortions of the facts, and hence remaining impartial. However, the science itself appears to be extremely complicated, and to some degree, requires that we include assumptions about uncertainties which are simply too large and anomalous to be adequately accounted for in computer models, given our current understanding.

Unfortunately, some information is also taken out of context, which makes deciphering what is really meant, or what should be interpreted as being misleading, all the more difficult.

As the information generated by computer models entails much of what predominantly human-induced climate projections are based on, it seems pertinent that the issue of the range of computer-model validity be addressed. What I have found that helps most in situations involving the output from computers is returning to the correct application of mathematical procedures for determining the most probable outcomes.

The proper way to use mathematics in science is to “curve fit” a previously observed set of data. The principle of Occam’s Razor tells us that the simplest or lowest-order equation that best fits the data is the one that should be chosen. A straight-line can be passed exactly through two data points; a second order (quadratic) curve can be exactly passed through three data points…and so on. An n + 1 order equation can be made to pass exactly through n data points. Therefore, if our equation involves enough complexity, i.e. if we have enough coefficients to adjust and arbitrary constants whose value we can choose, we can fit just about any data – even new data.

The question however is can we find a reasonably simple low-order model that fits a large number of points such that each time new data is introduced, it fits rather well onto the curve without vast modification of the coefficients in the equation?

If we have to add to the complexity of our model each time new data is received, this is strong evidence that the model is a poor one and we should re-examine our basic premises. As an equation is only a model of the real-world process, I would say we should never lose sight of this distinction.

Another limitation on any mathematical model (set of equations) is that it has a finite region of validity. For instance, if the model was developed using a set of input variables whose values ranged from zero to 1,000, then we cannot with any assurance use an input value of 1,000,000 and expect the answer given by the model to have any correspondence to reality.

Originally from this website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

While we might say there should a negative feedback for this physical mechanism or a positive one for that, what matters is that we understand the characteristics of the mechanisms and appreciate their significance and uniqueness. From most of the research I have conducted into climate change I have found that assembling a reasonable picture of what is actually going is no where near as straightforward as might be implied. It is an extremely complex issue, so as far as drawing generalised, robust conclusions about the global situation goes, they should be tempered by the fact that all data has a given “range of validity,” and that the implications of analyses conducted using this data should be considered, contextually, within that range.

Additionally, I think it is pertinent that some points be presented in the nature of Evolution and Geological Timescales in Particular:

The word “evolution” is commonly used in the following contexts:
  • Stellar/Planetary Evolution – An explosion (the “Big Bang”) supplied non-living material and over billions of years, supposedly this material became organised into planets and stars.
  • Cellular Evolution – At some point non-living matter supposedly became living, forming cells that could reproduce.
  • Evolution of living things – Supposedly over time, living things appeared which include fish, reptiles, birds and mammals. Human beings were supposedly the last to appear in this process. According to evolutionary theory, this change in living things was achieved using time, chance, natural selection (“survival of the fittest”) and mutation (random changes in genetic code).
To my eye, this information is simplified and somewhat misleading, as it does not provide conditional details and “ranges of validity.” It should thus be interpreted with caution. Below I present various additional details which may be helpful.

1. To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing. Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living thing and this has never been observed. This principle is governed by the Law of Biogenesis.

2. The missing links are still missing. If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record. These “links” are conspicuous by their absence.

After well over a hundred years of intensely studying the fossil record the “missing links” are still well and truly “missing”.

3. Complex [living] systems never evolve “bit by bit”. Living things need a number of very complex interdependent systems to live and survive. Each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years. There is no evidence (in the fossil record, etc.) of the evolution of such systems.

4. The Second Law of Thermodynamics holds that:

Entropy: natural processes tend to move towards a state of greater disorder.

The notion that the total entropy of any system plus that of its environment increases as a result of any natural processes is inconsistent because an increase in entropy (disorder) can only result from a decrease in entropy (move towards a state of order); for entropy to increase, it must have equally decreased in the first place.

Correctly stated: Entropy = dS – dS + [change in all other entropy] = 0, where dS is the change in entropy.

This basically means a net increase in order/decrease in entropy (evolution) is not plausible.

Clausius statement: heat flows naturally from a hot object to a cold object; heat will not flow spontaneously from a cold object to a hot object, or…

Energy transfer will naturally occur in the direction from a region of high energy to a region of low energy; energy will not spontaneously transfer from a region of low energy to a region of high energy. However…there must first be regions of high and low energy for this transfer to be possible.

5. The Law of Conservation of Energy holds that: the total energy is neither increased nor decreased in any process. Energy can be transformed from one form to another, and transferred from one object to another, but the total amount remains constant. This is given in equation form by dK + dU + [change in all other forms of energy] = 0, where dK is the change in kinetic energy and dU the change in potential energy.

6. Mutation never produces evolution. Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no new genetic material which will lead to actual macroevolution into another species.

To clarify: “Microevolution is the process that is responsible for the many variations of some species of living things, such as dogs and finches. Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird.” Bold Added. (source).

Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. They are an example of increasing entropy (things become more disordered over time) in action.

Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions!

7. Probability suggests no macroevolution. This relates to the Law of Biogenesis and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

8. It has been purported that rejecting “natural selection” is tantamount to rejecting the laws of probability and statistics themselves. While “natural selection” is said to lead to macroevolution, according to the Laws of Probability, “natural selection” alone is highly improbable. It is not that “natural selection” is invalidated rather it is that in applying the Laws of Probability (of which “natural selection” is a part) it is found to be highly unlikely.

9. A probability smaller than 1 over 10^50 is statistically considered to have a “0” probability of realisation. The probability of a single protein molecule consisting of 200 amino acids arising spontaneously by chance may then be 1 in 10^260.

The fact that protein molecules do form implies that the buildings blocks and environmental conditions required for their formation are already permissible, or certain. At this point I don’t think it is appropriate to speculate on these ideas any further, so I will leave it to the reader to make of them what they will.

(Source).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning Carbon 14 Dating:

I note in particular that, according to the Model of the Earth’s history developed by Michael Hart in 1978, the Luminosity of the Sun has increase by about 25% from the evolutionary age of 4.55 billion years ago [this is relevant to the points below on carbon dating]. This model (which assumed a chemically-reducing atmosphere) was quite complex, including the following processes:
  • Rate of out-gassing of volatiles (H, C, N, O) from the interior;
  • Condensation of water vapour into oceans;
  • Solution of atmospheric gases into oceans;
  • Photo dissociation of water vapour in the upper atmosphere;
  • Escape of hydrogen from the uppermost atmosphere (exosphere);
  • Chemical reactions in atmospheric gases;
  • Presence of life and variations in Biomass;
  • Photosynthesis and burial of organic sediments;
  • The Urey reaction (CaSiO[3] + CO[2] => CaCO[3] + SiO[2]);
  • Oxidation of surface minerals (2FeO + O => Fe[2]O[3]);
  • Variations in the luminosity of the Sun;
  • Variations in the albedo of the Earth;
  • And the Greenhouse effect.
(Source).

While I am suspicious of the source of the following points, as it does not provide alternative explanations, I believe it highlights legitimate concerns. I have only included those points I believe are reasonable.

“(1) Atmospheric carbon: The air around us has for the past several million years, had the same amount of atmospheric carbon that it now has.
[* - does this include effects due to the glacial-interglacial cycles?]

(2) Oceanic carbon: During that time, the very large amount of oceanic carbon has remained constant.
[* - does this include variations due to annual fluctuations in dissolved carbon, and out-gassing of volatiles (H, C, N, O) from the interior?]

(3) Cosmic rays: Cosmic rays from outer space have reached the earth in the same amounts in the past as now.
[* - see point about luminosity.]

(6) No contamination: Nothing has ever contaminated any specimen containing carbon 14.
[* - contaminated by C=14 from other sources]

(10) Atmospheric nitrogen: Nitrogen is the precursor to C=14, so the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere must have always been constant.
[Not sure about this – (Hart Model) oxygen produced by plants reacted with the methane and ammonia in the atmosphere. This process resulted in an atmosphere made up almost completely of nitrogen (derived from ammonia) with a small mixture of oxygen. The increase in oxygen content to its present 21.95% may have taken place about 600 million years ago.]

(13) Earth’s magnetic field: Earth’s magnetic field was the same in the past as it is today.
[* - does this include magnetic reversals and the effects of a changing solar wind on the upper atmosphere?]”

(Source).

I do not mean to complicate these things however they can turn out to be just that.

The equations which govern the milankovitch cycles can be found here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Overall, I believe there is a case for a mild to moderate warming of the lower atmosphere as a result of increased anthropogenic emissions of CO2.
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/02/2010 02:00

Quote:
Overall, I believe there is a case for a mild to moderate warming of the lower atmosphere as a result of increased anthropogenic emissions of CO2.


How would you explain the Co2 lag in previous global warming episodes? IE Co2 levels elevate after the warming, where does that leave the current warming caused by Co2 hypothesis? Do you have any Proof for your belief apart from Models?
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/02/2010 13:18

Originally Posted By: marakai
Quote:
Overall, I believe there is a case for a mild to moderate warming of the lower atmosphere as a result of increased anthropogenic emissions of CO2.


How would you explain the Co2 lag in previous global warming episodes? IE Co2 levels elevate after the warming, where does that leave the current warming caused by Co2 hypothesis? Do you have any Proof for your belief apart from Models?


Firstly, I am not disagreeing on the point, however what is the evidence that the warming causes CO2 to increase, i.e. what is the physical mechanism linking warming to the CO2 lag (of 600-odd years, if I have that correctly)?

Secondly, according the evolutionary theory, there would have been little or no human contribution to CO2 levels (no power plants) in the past prior to the Industrial Revolution, which means no sustained continuous emissions into the atmosphere from many years (decades) at a time.

Thirdly, CO2 is already in the air. It is known that the oceanic-atmospheric circulation regulates this concentration on an annual basis, so we might expect a 600-year natural long-term lag (evidence for this sort of lag might also be found in the fact that water, on average, remains in the oceans for 2000-odd years, while in the atmosphere is probably only days) in the absence of sustained human activity.

However, as implied on the website “Cold Facts on Global Warming,” reducing or halting CO2 emissions might have a near-instantaneous affect on (short-term) increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Additional, you said “proof for your belief apart from models”…what are your concerns about the ranges of validity or workings of the models? In asking this I am inviting constructive debate smile.
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 07/02/2010 01:28

Quote:
Overall, I believe there is a case for a mild to moderate warming of the lower atmosphere as a result of increased anthropogenic emissions of CO2.
Quote:
How would you explain the Co2 lag in previous global warming episodes? IE Co2 levels elevate after the warming, where does that leave the current warming caused by Co2 hypothesis? Do you have any Proof for your belief apart from Models?


Quote:
Firstly, I am not disagreeing on the point, however what is the evidence that the warming causes CO2 to increase, i.e. what is the physical mechanism linking warming to the CO2 lag (of 600-odd years, if I have that correctly)?

6-800 yrs is in the ball park, just one physical mechanism would be the heating of the oceans, not only causing the release of CO2 but impeding the uptake of CO2 as well as colder water absorbs more CO2, of course you would need to have the heating take place first for this to happen, whatever the physical procces the evidence is there.

Petit et al 1999 — as the world cools into an ice age, the delay is several thousand years.

Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 ±400 years as the world warms.

Monnin et al 2001— Dome Concordia – found a delay on warming from the recent ice age 800 ± 600 years

Mudelsee 2001— over the full 420,000 year Vostok history, Co2 lags by 1,300 ± 1000 years.

Caillon et al 2003 — analysed the Vostok data and found a lag of 800 ± 200 years



Quote:
Secondly, according the evolutionary theory, there would have been little or no human contribution to CO2 levels (no power plants) in the past prior to the Industrial Revolution, which means no sustained continuous emissions into the atmosphere from many years (decades) at a time.


No quite right which brings into question the current hypotheses that Mankind is responsible for the current warming.

Quote:
Thirdly, CO2 is already in the air. It is known that the oceanic-atmospheric circulation regulates this concentration on an annual basis, so we might expect a 600-year natural long-term lag (evidence for this sort of lag might also be found in the fact that water, on average, remains in the oceans for 2000-odd years, while in the atmosphere is probably only days) in the absence of sustained human activity.

However, as implied on the website “Cold Facts on Global Warming,” reducing or halting CO2 emissions might have a near-instantaneous affect on (short-term) increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.



If this were the case why would there be both vast increases and decreases of CO2 in the historical record before the advent of Human derived CO2?, as you stated CO2 was around long before our existence as a species and the Earth itself regulated the rise and fall of CO2 in the atmosphere, if not rising levels of CO2 in the past would of led to runnaway heating of the planet long before we arrived on the scene, this did not occur so there has to be some sort of mechanism in place that regulates the rise and fall of CO2 naturally that we are unaware of.

Quote:
Additional, you said “proof for your belief apart from models”…what are your concerns about the ranges of validity or workings of the models? In asking this I am inviting constructive debate smile.


My concerns regarding the "Models" are that models are the whole basis for all of the Human induced Global warming dialogue.
In reality this is the only evidence we have that Humans are responsible for any part of the warming that has been observed and I might add that the warming that is observed is well within the bounds of natural variability.
Models are restrained by the Data that they are based upon and when you have models that predict Armageddon and we are subject to Political decisions that change our way of life, restrict the lively hood of individuals and impact on the population of our whole country adversely but do not include such things as Clouds for example when coming to such a conclusion I have real issues with them.

Models are not Solid Science, they are models.
Most of the time they can not hindcast correctly so they are readjusted to do so and we are then asked to take the future predictions as a given.
The input Data itself is relevant to the person/s creating and providing the Data and just this alone is fraught with problems such as tweaking and fudging of the Data just in the process of providing homogenised input Data with which to run the model, extrapolate all these tweaks and adjustments from all the different data streams needed for just one Model and the compounding errors before the Model is even run negate any predictive accuracy that might even be close to reality.

The actual programming of the model is another story altogether.

We cant even predict the weather with any real accuracy based on models two weeks out, but we are asked to believe in Models predicting the Climate 50-100 years out ? (and please dont go the Climate is not Weather line).

Models are all we have as evidence for AGW, and nine out of ten cant pick the noise from the noise (without being tweaked).
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 08/02/2010 17:40

Why I Am A Global Warming Skeptic
Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Sun, 02/07/2010

The debate over anthropogenic global warming—a theory propounded by the UN IPCC—is often portrayed as an argument between deniers and true believers. The deniers supposedly claim that there is no global warming, man made or otherwise, and that the whole theory is a plot by left-wing agitators and closet socialists bent on world domination. The true believers, conversely, accept every claim of pending future disaster uttered by scientists and activists alike. As with most controversies both extreme positions are wrong and the truth lies somewhere in-between. As a scientist, I have studied the evidence and find the case for imminent, dangerous, human caused global warming unconvincing—here is why I am an AGW skeptic.

According to www.dict.org, a skeptic is “one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons”.* This is a much more accurate description of the stand taken by Al and myself in our book, The Resilient Earth. Specifically, I am skeptical of the claim that human produced carbon dioxide will have the dramatic effect on Earth's temperature projected by the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers. To understand why I have reached this conclusion requires starting with some basic science.

*[That site also notes that this word and its derivatives are often written with c instead of k in the first syllable: sceptic, sceptical, scepticism, etc. Dr. Johnson, struck with the extraordinary irregularity of giving c its hard sound before e, altered the spelling, and his example has been followed by most lexicographers]

Preliminaries

There is no doubt that the “greenhouse effect” warms Earth, this has been known for two centuries. Because of the mix of gases in the atmosphere, the air surrounding our planet is transparent to visible light coming from the sun, but opaque at many wavelengths in the infrared band. When sunlight strikes Earth's surface, it re-radiates solar energy back toward space in the form of infrared light. Greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere absorb much of that radiation, trapping thermal energy and warming the planet. This has a significant impact on surface temperatures.

The result can be calculated using simple physics. The Stefan-Boltzmann law shows that if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, Earth's average surface temperature would be –18˚C (–1˚F). This is well below the freezing point of water and would make life as we know it impossible. Earth's actual observed average surface temperature is 15˚C (59˚F). By empirical measurement, the greenhouse effect raises our planet’s surface temperature by 33˚C (60˚F). To this extent, global warming has already taken place—and a darn good thing for us it has.

The primary greenhouse gases are H2O (water vapor), CO2, and CH4 (methane). I have often stated that water vapor is the most important GHG, but a comparison of water vapor and carbon dioxide highlights some interesting facts. The data in Table 1 were computed by assuming that one gas is removed from the atmosphere, leaving the others unchanged. If you remove all water vapor from the atmosphere, the infrared absorption will decrease by 36 percent. If you remove all greenhouse gases (and clouds) and leave only water vapor, the infrared absorption will decrease by 34 percent.
Greenhouse gas removed % Decrease in IR absorption
H2O vapor 36
All except H2O vapor 34
CO2 9
All except CO2 74
H2O vapor + CO2 53
Other GHG 5
Clouds 16

Table 1: Contributions to the greenhouse effect by different greenhouse gases. Source realclimate.org.

Since GHG have overlapping bands of infrared absorption, the absorption from one gas affects the absorption from another gas. Some wavelengths of infrared light are absorbed by both water vapor and CO2. If water vapor alone is removed, leaving the CO2, the CO2 will absorb the infrared light in the overlap region. Conversely, if the CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, water vapor will absorb that infrared light. Thus the absorption by one gas depends on the other gases present in the atmosphere.

Note that removing all GHGs with the exception of water vapor would result in absorption of 66% of the IR radiation absorbed by the current atmosphere (100 – 34). If all GHGs except CO2 are removed the absorption rate is reduced to only 26%. Clearly H2O is more important than carbon dioxide, but CO2 does make a significant contribution. So far this has been a matter of basic physics, but things are about to get more complicated.

Most of the claims about the impact of AGW are predicated on specific amounts of temperature increase. The temperature increase is attributed to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, another fact that very few scientists deny. For reasons soon to be discussed, future temperature increases are calibrated on an assumed increase for doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over “preindustrial” levels. Long-term atmospheric data show that CO2 levels remained stable around 280 ppm (parts per million) during the most of the past 10,000 years. When climate scientists talk about CO2 levels doubling this is the base level from which the increase is measured.

The simplest, and incorrect, way to estimate of the impact of doubling atmospheric CO2 levels would be to double its greenhouse temperature contribution. Such a linear estimate for doubling all GHG would would result in an additional increase of 33˚C (60˚F), giving an average surface temperature of the earth of 48˚C (119˚F). Fortunately that is not the way things work in the real world. Doubling CO2 levels will only result in a small rise in temperature due to two factors, both having to do the absorption spectra of greenhouse gases as shown in the graph below.

The two complicating factors are band saturation and spectral overlap. The first has to do with how much radiation is already being absorbed at specific frequencies. If the absorption at a certain wavelength is close to 100 percent, doubling the CO2 level will have little effect—absorption can not exceed 100% no matter how much more gas is added. Think of if this way: if a totally opaque curtain is placed over a window, blocking all of the light, adding more layers of curtain cannot make the room any darker.

The second limiting factor, spectral overlap, comes from the relationships between the frequencies of light GHG absorption. As already stated, water vapor has areas of infrared light absorption that overlap the absorption by CO2. As with saturation, in regions where infrared light is already strongly absorbed by water vapor, the addition of more CO2 will make little or no difference. Given these complications, doubling atmospheric CO2 levels will result in a much lower temperature rise than a linear estimation.

The impact of such a doubling can still be calculated using formulas from a standard textbook. If nothing else in the system changes, a doubling of CO2 from the preindustrial levels is estimated to produce a temperature rise of 1.2 to 1.3˚C (2.2 to 2.3˚F). Again, the calculation is straightforward and there is little controversy about the figure among scientists. Now recall that over the last century and a half CO2 levels have risen from a preindustrial 280 ppm to around 380 ppm. At the same time global average mean temperature has risen (depending on who you believe) 0.8 to 1.0˚C. This implies that, once the CO2 level reaches 560 ppm, the dreaded doubling, temperatures should rise by another 0.2 to 0.5˚C. So where do the IPCC estimates of 2.0 to 6.0˚C come from?
In Summary

To summarize, Earth's climate is amazingly, mind-blowingly complex and science has only just begun to figure out how it works. While our theoretical knowledge improves and our data become more accurate with each passing year, it is safe to say that there is still more we don't know about climate change than things we think we understand. Here are some fundamental questions about the state of Earth's climate:

* Is Earth's climate warming? Yes, by around 1°C (1.8°F) during the 150 years leading up to the present.
* Do human activities impact the climate? Yes, all numerous and widespread species do to some extent (see the concluding remarks of “What Killed The Mastodons?”).
* Do atmospheric CO2 levels rise and fall with temperature? Yes, according to historical data.
* Are atmospheric CO2 levels rising because of people? Yes, it would appear so.
* Does this mean that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is correct? Absolutely not.

For the reasons given in the article above, and those described in greater detail in The Resilient Earth, I have concluded that science does not understand the climate system well enough to make the predictions that climate change alarmists keep making. Scientists continue to argue about fundamental mechanisms and the accuracy of historical data. In the absence of better theoretical knowledge and sufficient accurate data, climate scientists have filled the void in understanding with output from computer models, which are the most fickle and fallible of tools.

Consider the following main points:

* Climate is a nonlinear system.
* Not all feedback relationships are known or well characterized.
* Based on known empirical evidence a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels will only cause a further increase of 0.2 to 0.5°C in global temperature.
* In order to achieve the temperature levels predicted by the IPCC requires amplifying positive feedback from the climate system.
* There is no compelling proof that Earth's climate system acts as a temperature change amplifier.
* Not all known factors are included in climate models.
* Models cannot predict nonlinear responses not built into them.
* Baseline data used to calibrate the models are uncertain and possibly erroneous.
* Different climate models predict different future outcomes because they make different assumption or use different values for model parameters.
* All climate models contain errors that are fundamental to their construction.

In the wake of Climategate and Glaciergate it is tempting to dismiss the theory of anthropogenic global warming as bogus science foisted off on a gullible public by a number of bad scientists. The reasons for this climate science chicanery are not clear: the torrent of grant money, the novelty of fame or simply error amplified by ego. As entertaining as the news accounts of unfolding scandal have been, it is important to remember that many serious scientists believe in human caused global warming to one degree or another. But science is a human endeavor and as prone to mistakes as any other. This will not be the first time that a majority of the scientific community believed in an erroneous theory, and it certainly will not be the last. Eventually, science will decide the fate of AGW based on empirical evidence—nature itself will provide the proof, one way or the other.

To date, climate science has not produced any incontrovertible proof that rising CO2 levels will, in fact, cause the temperature increases predicted by GCM models. The information presented above reinforces the observations I made in my earlier post, “The Crumbling Pillars of Climate Change.” The theoretical understanding is incomplete, the historic data are spotty and uncertain, and the models are not an accurate representation of the climate system. Further, models have been used inappropriately to bolster the IPCC's case—models are not scientific evidence and should not be used to predict long-term real world behavior.

The truth is, climate science uses computer models like a drunk uses a lamppost, not for illumination but for support. Even AGW supporters agree that if the only evidence for global warming were computer models, then skepticism would be entirely justified. But, while models are most definitely a sore point in the global warming debate, they are not the central point. It is the science itself that is uncompelling. Neither current scientific knowledge nor historical data prove the theory of anthropogenic global warming as put forth by the IPCC. If anything, new data and new studies reveal that current climate change dogma has got it very wrong. That is why I remain a global warming skeptic.

Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical.

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/why-i-am-global-warming-skeptic
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 11/02/2010 21:37

Originally Posted By: marakai
6-800 yrs is in the ball park, just one physical mechanism would be the heating of the oceans, not only causing the release of CO2 but impeding the uptake of CO2 as well as colder water absorbs more CO2, of course you would need to have the heating take place first for this to happen, whatever the physical procces the evidence is there.

Petit et al 1999 — as the world cools into an ice age, the delay is several thousand years.

Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 ±400 years as the world warms.

Monnin et al 2001— Dome Concordia – found a delay on warming from the recent ice age 800 ± 600 years

Mudelsee 2001— over the full 420,000 year Vostok history, Co2 lags by 1,300 ± 1000 years.

Caillon et al 2003 — analysed the Vostok data and found a lag of 800 ± 200 years.

You might notice in the papers you’ve quoted the ranges of uncertainty. Compared to the estimates themselves, they appear quite large. Not saying anything is wrong with that, just that it’s something I’d keep in mind smile.

Anyhow, I think I briefly mentioned something along the lines of a long-term connection involving a CO2 lag. In fact, the following may be of help:

I believe the global oceanic circulation, otherwise known as the thermohaline circulation (THC), firstly depends directly on the motion of ocean currents, which are influenced by the axial rotation of the Earth and the distribution of solar radiation over the oceans. The radiation from the Sun results in turbulent latent heat flux at the oceans’ surfaces. As water evaporates from the oceans’ surfaces it leaves behind salt, which gradually increases the salinity of the water remaining in the surface oceans (above the thermocline), and results in mixing. As the salinity of the surface layers increases, so does the density. This process of increasing salinity and density occurs dynamically as warm tropical surface waters are transported to the Polar Regions in the North Atlantic Ocean, where they sink below the mixed surface oceans (below the thermocline), then becoming Intermediate and eventually Deep Water. The two main drivers of the THC are atmospheric winds (above the thermocline) and density differences (below the thermocline). As in the case of atmospheric winds following the isobaric contours of high- and low-pressure cells, deep-ocean water tends to move more horizontally than vertically following isopycnals (density contours). Also, the oceans are mixed far more slowly than the atmosphere, so there are large horizontal and vertical changes in the oceans’ CO2 concentration. In general, tropical waters release CO2 into the atmosphere, whereas high-latitude oceans take up CO2 from the atmosphere.

Depending on the intensity of the incident sunlight, mixing can occur in Intermediate ocean waters. Logically, higher evaporation rates would lead to the surface waters sinking below the thermocline and causing mixing at a greater rate than lower evaporation rates. It is from this basic reasoning that an understanding comes of how the THC could be more dependent on incident solar radiation (leading to evaporation) and planetary rotation or the Coriolis Effect (causing oceanic eddies and thus mixing). As in Tropical Regions the surface waters’ temperatures are higher, due to receiving more sunlight per unit area (thus expanding more, leading to a greater volume of water) and have a lower salinity than waters at higher latitudes (because there is less dissolved salt per unit volume), this could effectively enhance the THC (and intensify the water cycle) if the intensity of sunlight per unit area increased significantly (in terms of thousands of years).

Where anthropogenic CO2 comes into this, or in fact naturally-produced CO2, is when we consider that the “greenhouse effect” is a phenomenon of the atmosphere (i.e. atmospheric warming), not the surface heating which causes the release of CO2. As CO2 is already in the atmosphere, it is already causing (greenhouse) warming. In other words, heating the Earth’s surface directly does not represent the greenhouse effect.

What is misleading about the notion of the planet “warming up” is use of the terms “greenhouse effect” in reference to direct surface warming. To clarify again, yes, there is direct surface warming, however the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have to actually absorb the outgoing radiant heat energy to warm up the atmosphere, CO2 being one of them.

So if the surface air temperature at 2 metres above ground level rises, it is not because the surface has been heated, but because the ambient atmospheric temperature at 2 metres has increased (due to advected or convected latent/sensible heat, or otherwise). Thus the atmospheric temperature cannot rise ahead of the released of CO2 (or water vapour), while the surface (ground) temperature can.

If, as indicated by the papers you quoted above, there is a significant long-term lag between increasing surface temperatures and increasing CO2, then that may actually aid or enhance the natural greenhouse effect (if CO2 levels do not respond immediately to global surface temperature changes), depending on how long we have been emitting industrial CO2 in the atmosphere. If, on the other hand the natural (annual) uptake and emission of oceanic CO2 is taken into account, then the suggestions is there is actually less to be concerned about due to the dynamic short-term oceanic regulation of this gas.

Originally Posted By: marakai
Quote:
Secondly, according the evolutionary theory, there would have been little or no human contribution to CO2 levels (no power plants) in the past prior to the Industrial Revolution, which means no sustained continuous emissions into the atmosphere from many years (decades) at a time.


No quite right which brings into question the current hypotheses that Mankind is responsible for the current warming.

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. Could you clarify?

Originally Posted By: marakai

Quote:
Thirdly, CO2 is already in the air. It is known that the oceanic-atmospheric circulation regulates this concentration on an annual basis, so we might expect a 600-year natural long-term lag (evidence for this sort of lag might also be found in the fact that water, on average, remains in the oceans for 2000-odd years, while in the atmosphere is probably only days) in the absence of sustained human activity.

However, as implied on the website “Cold Facts on Global Warming,” reducing or halting CO2 emissions might have a near-instantaneous affect on (short-term) increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.


If this were the case why would there be both vast increases and decreases of CO2 in the historical record before the advent of Human derived CO2?, as you stated CO2 was around long before our existence as a species and the Earth itself regulated the rise and fall of CO2 in the atmosphere, if not rising levels of CO2 in the past would of led to runnaway heating of the planet long before we arrived on the scene, this did not occur so there has to be some sort of mechanism in place that regulates the rise and fall of CO2 naturally that we are unaware of.

While I did not mentioned a runaway greenhouse effect, as you raised the point, I will address it smile. Firstly, if CO2 increased or decreased prior to the advent of human derived CO2, then that would logically point the causes or mechanisms other than human influences. However (depending the timescales involved) other hitherto unknown processes may have been in effect that are not dominant at present times. We simply do not known unless we have an accurate and reliable/robust estimate of the timescales involved and climatic conditions at these times. And for those accurate and reliable/robust estimates we have computer models/proxy records, involving assumptions (which I will address further down).

Secondly, my concern with current rises in CO2 levels has to do with the future state of thermodynamic equilibrium in which climate will be, as in implying that interference in natural processes due to human activity will shift the equilibrium to a new state. What that will be I’m not sure either, but there are some slight indications already, including the intensification of the water cycle, or redistribution of ambient atmospheric/oceanic energy. Again, however, I would emphasise caution in jumping to conclusions as I am not claiming significant changes will occur (I mentioned mild to moderate changes in an earlier post).

Originally Posted By: marakai
My concerns regarding the "Models" are that models are the whole basis for all of the Human induced Global warming dialogue. In reality this is the only evidence we have that Humans are responsible for any part of the warming that has been observed and I might add that the warming that is observed is well within the bounds of natural variability.

I agree, however this is not to say human activity does not have the capacity to alter or interfere in natural patterns.

Originally Posted By: marakai
Models are restrained by the Data that they are based upon and when you have models that predict Armageddon and we are subject to Political decisions that change our way of life, restrict the lively hood of individuals and impact on the population of our whole country adversely but do not include such things as Clouds for example when coming to such a conclusion I have real issues with them.

The biggest issue I have with what is said in political circles is with what politicians are obliged say (be concrete about) to keep in line with the status-quo, their career prospects and standing to avoid upsetting people versus what scientists have to convey, which involves expressing some degree of uncertainty, while maintaining their findings are reasonable and accurate.

Regarding clouds, I believe, as previously mentioned that they are covered by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation for the atmosphere, which relates the ambient air temperature to the saturated vapour pressure.

The rate of evaporation and the amount of water vapour that air can hold (the saturation vapour pressure) increase non-linearly with the ambient air temperature. In other words, increase the air temperature, and the saturation vapour pressure will increase (somewhat exponentially in nature). Conversely, higher humidity (greater atmospheric water vapour content) will lead to a higher atmospheric emissivity (heat energy emitted back towards to surface) and thus a higher ambient air (and surface) temperatures, leading to more heating, and thus more evaporation. This whole process represents a positive feedback.

However, at high atmospheric temperatures the atmosphere becomes optically saturated with respect to water vapour, meaning virtually all radiant heat energy in the bandwidths water vapour absorbs is absorbed (within a given distance from the surface). Additionally, high concentrations of water vapour also cause cloud (liquid water droplets) to form and coalesce (with the aid of condensation nuclei).

In contrast to water vapour, the fraction of the globe covered by ice, snow or clouds decreases the heat energy absorbed by the planet. But again, the amount ice (or snow) cover and cloud cover depends on the surface (and air) temperatures, with lower temperatures leading to higher snow and ice cover, and higher temperatures leading to higher cloud cover (due to enhanced evaporation). It can therefore be said that the surface albedo is also a function of the surface and ambient air temperature, with the highest albedo values corresponding to surface and air temperatures that are significantly warmer or colder than the mean.

Hence, surface ice or snow cover will increase if the surface or ambient air temperature gets lower or higher than its mean. It may also be reasonable to assume the albedo increases gradually at first, then get stronger as the surface temperature deviates further from the mean, until at considerably cold or warm temperatures, the planetary albedo reaches its maximum possible value (representing either an ice-covered or cloud-covered planet). This is the effect of a negative feedback.

The Clausius-Clapeyron relation therefore plays a very important role in our understanding of water vapour, clouds, surface albedo, ice cover, snow cover, surface and ambient air temperature.

(Source).

Similarly to the effects of increasing atmospheric water vapour content, if more CO2 is released into the atmosphere by the oceans, the planet will become warmer (the greenhouse effect) and wetter (a warmer atmosphere causes greater evaporation).

As indicated in a previous post, the 11-year solar cycle flux (solar constant) is increasing (per long-term record) and the sunspots cycle has reached an 11-year low (as far as I can tell). If cosmic rays increase the rate of cloud formation, the implication is a trend of reducing cloud cover. However, increased solar heating also aids in cloud formation via the atmosphere-based Clausius-Clapeyron relation. So depending on which factor has the greater influence, there may be warming or cooling. Given, on average, roughly half the incoming solar radiation from the Sun reaches the surface, this is not necessarily straightforward to determine.

Originally Posted By: marakai
Models are not Solid Science, they are models. Most of the time they can not hindcast correctly so they are readjusted to do so and we are then asked to take the future predictions as a given.

I agree that computer models simulate representations of real-world physical processes, however they do present a great deal of our current understanding of how the climate and weather work, so I would think to dismiss them as not being concrete scientifically on those grounds would be somewhat unreasonable. We might not able to confirm (in concrete) whether the models are accurate in what they estimate without drawing comparisons between their outputs and in-field observations, however that does not necessarily invalidate the reasoning that has gone into their behaviour.

Originally Posted By: marakai
The input Data itself is relevant to the person/s creating and providing the Data and just this alone is fraught with problems such as tweaking and fudging of the Data just in the process of providing homogenised input Data with which to run the model, extrapolate all these tweaks and adjustments from all the different data streams needed for just one Model and the compounding errors before the Model is even run negate any predictive accuracy that might even be close to reality.


I would have though that at least some data manipulation would be required for model outputs to be reasonable. However, if it can be demonstrated that certain additional manipulations of data (beyond the purposes of quality-control) are unnecessary, I would see no issue.

Originally Posted By: marakai
We cant even predict the weather with any real accuracy based on models two weeks out, but we are asked to believe in Models predicting the Climate 50-100 years out ? (and please dont go the Climate is not Weather line).


Before I continue, I would like to add that climate is weather averaged over determined spatial and temporal scales, which is to say in some sense it represents elements of the weather while in others it doesn’t.

I have looked into this and agree that there are some disparities between predictions and observations. As I understand it, to date, the equations for the behaviour of the atmosphere cannot be solved analytically, therefore the alternative is the find numerical solutions. As you may see, the higher the resolution of numerical models, the shorter the period they can project into the future due to divergence of model behaviours from what happens in reality, or sensitive dependence on initial model conditions (inputs). Daily or weekly weather models may have the capacity to incorporate phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina (which vary on temporal scales of months to years, rather than days or weeks) into their behaviour, among other more general (regional) climate phenomena, however this does not seem appropriate given their design. Even with climate indicators on larger scales, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), we are unlikely to get a reasonable idea of what the day-to-day weather is going to be like. It is therefore a good idea to consider relationships between various climate variables and indicators/indices on the appropriate spatial and temporal scales. I do not believe in simply saying the behaviour of the weather/climate occurs on only daily/weekly or monthly/yearly spatial and temporal scale. To my eye this is unrealistic. You might to able to categorise for practical purposes, however it is more in combination that we are really able to get some insight.

Concerning model projections, as I stated in a recent long post, they involve ranges of validity, and assumptions within those ranges. Depending on the weather/climate phenomenon being modelled, temporal ranges of validity can be anywhere from days to years, and global to local spatially. It really does depend.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 11/02/2010 21:57

The following is my understanding, to-date, of the Earth’s Global Annual Mean Energy Budget. I have modelled the figures below and they appear to agree rather well with one another. The figures mentioned are rounded to three decimal places (where I have edited properly). If you are not so interested in the details or do not wish to test the figures below for yourself, this might not be for you.

It is well-establish that the top of the Earth’s atmosphere receives a surface-averaged input from the sun of about 342 W/m2. Of this amount, about 0.702 of the 342 W/m2 SWR (or 240.25 W/m2) is absorbed by the planet on average – this is the total IR radiation emitted to space from both the atmosphere and surface. As a fraction of the LWR emitted by the Earth, this is 0.614 of 390.98 W/m2.

Of the 240.25 W/m2 emitted by the planet, 40 W/m2 LWR is emitted by the surface as direct IR radiation to space. The remaining 0.211, as a fraction of 342 W/m2 (or 72.25 W/m2 SWR) absorbed by the planet is absorbed directly in the visible and UV spectrum by O2, O3 and H2O molecules in the atmosphere. This figure is the result of computer simulations which rely on numerous assumptions about the physical processes at work in the atmosphere. As a fraction of the energy emitted by atmosphere, this is 0.19 multiplied by the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant times the atmospheric temperature (in degrees Kelvin) to the fourth power.

The observed absorption of incoming solar short-wave radiation (SWR) by the atmosphere is up to 30 W/m2 higher than the figure predicted as a result of computer simulations. This is known as the absorption anomaly.

The total LWR emitted by the atmosphere is given by the temperature of the atmosphere to the fourth power multiplied by the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant, which gives 378.18 W/m2. The temperature of the atmosphere is given by the fourth root of 2 to the power of –1 multiplied by the surface air temperature. For a surface air temperature of 15oC, the corresponding atmosphere temperature is 12.6oC. As a fraction of the total 390.98 W/m2 emitted by the surface, 0.088 (or 30.09 W/m2) is emitted towards the surface (from space), 0.123 (or 38.96 W/m2) is emitted to space (from space). As a fraction of the 378.18 W/m2 emitted by the Earth’s atmosphere, 0.088 (or 33.28 W/m2) is emitted towards the surface (from space), 0.103 (or 38.96 W/m2) is emitted to space (from space). And as a fraction of the total 342 W/m2 received by the Earth, this is 0.088 (or 30.09 W/m2) and 0.123 (or 38.96 W/m2).

The total LWR emitted by the atmosphere towards the surface is given by the two components. First, the average global emissivity of the atmosphere, 0.771, is multiplied by the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant and the temperature of the atmosphere to the fourth power, which gives 291.6 W/m2. And secondly, the LWR emitted towards the surface by the atmosphere from space, 33.28 W/m2, is added to this figure to give 324.88 W/m2.

The atmosphere emits 0.038 of the incident SWR it absorbs (or 14.33 W/m2) directly to space. This means a total of 53.30 W/m2 (or 14.33 W/m2 + 38.96 W/m2) is emitted to space by the atmosphere. 324.88 W/m2 emitted back to the surface plus the 53.30 W/m2 emitted to space by the atmosphere gives the total of 378.18 W/m2 emitted by the atmosphere at a temperature of 12.6oC.

The LWR absorbed by atmosphere from surface as a fraction of energy emitted by atmosphere is 0.808, or 305.93 W/m2. The LWR absorbed by atmosphere from surface as a fraction of energy emitted by the surface is 0.782, or 305.93 W/m2. The LWR absorbed by atmosphere from surface, as a fraction of energy emitted by surface multiplied by ratio of surface-to-atmosphere emission is 0.808, or 316.28 W/m2.

The downward component of LWR absorbed by atmosphere from surface, as a fraction of ratio of surface-to-atmosphere emission, is 1.033, or 316.28 W/m2. The upward component of LWR absorbed by atmosphere from surface, as a fraction of ratio of surface-to-atmosphere emission, is 1.033, or 301.46 W/m2. The LWR absorbed by atmosphere from surface, as a fraction of energy emitted by surface, 0.771, or 301.46 W/m2.

The total LWR emitted by the Earth’s surface is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, were the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant is multiplied by the global average surface air temperature to the fourth power. This gives 390.98 W/m2. 0.297 of the 342 W/m2 SWR (or 101.74 W/m2) is reflected and scattered back to space in the UV and visible spectrum from the atmosphere, clouds and the surface. Of this (as a fraction of the 342 W/m2 SWR – 0.208) 71.15 W/m2 is reflected by the atmosphere. 0.148 of the 342 W/m2 SWR (or 50.87 W/m2) is reflected and scattered by clouds in the atmosphere. 0.059 of the 342 W/m2 SWR (or 20.27 W/m2) is reflected by molecules and aerosols in the atmosphere to space. And 0.089471095 of the 342 W/m2 SWR (or 30.59 W/m2) is reflected by the surface to space.

Of the incident 342 W/m2 SWR, 0.491 (or 168 W/m2) reaches the surface. 0.192 of this 168 W/m2 (or 66 W/m2) is absorbed by the surface directly. 0.228 of the 168 W/m2 (or 78 W/m2) becomes LWR evapo-transpiration or turbulent latent heat flux in heating condensed water molecules on the surface (land and oceans) and in the atmosphere (this usually follows rain or wet conditions). And 0.07 of the 168 W/m2 (or 24 W/m2) becomes LWR turbulent sensible heat flux (conduction and convection) in heating air molecules near the surface.

The total IR radiation emitted by H2O, CO2 and clouds to space from the surface and the atmosphere is (66 W/m2 – 40 W/m2) + 78 W/m2 + 24 W/m2 + 72.25 W/m2 = 200.25 W/m2. Of this 200.25 W/m2, 30 W/m2 is emitted by clouds to space (the 30 W/m2 being a subset of the 66 W/m2 IR radiation emitted from the surface and absorbed by the atmosphere), leaving 10 W/m2 emitted directly to space by the surface. 0.15 of the incoming 342 W/m2 SWR (or 51.60 W/m2) is absorbed molecules and aerosols in the atmosphere. 0.03 of the incident 342 W/m2 SWR (or 10.32 W/m2) is absorbed by ozone in the atmosphere. Another 0.03 of the 342 W/m2 SWR (or 10.32 W/m2) is absorbed by clouds in the atmosphere. The 168 W/m2 reaching the surface + 51.6 W/m2 absorbed by molecules and aerosols in the atmosphere + 10.32 W/m2 absorbed by ozone + 10.32 W/m2 absorbed by clouds gives the 240.25 W/m2 absorbed/emitted by the Earth.

The SWR absorbed by the surface + the LW evapo-transpiration (turbulent latent heat flux) + the LW turbulent sensible heat flux + the LW emitted to space by the atmosphere – LW radiation emitted through the atmospheric window to space is given by 0.427 as a fraction of 342 W/m2, which is 166.96 W/m2.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 14/02/2010 18:32

Some very interesting references to a number of climate science papers can be found on Dr Richard North's EUReferendum under the "against the grain " post.

There is also some attention being given to a theory that very long duration "infragravity" waves are responsible for the breakup of the Antarctic ice shelves and the consequent formation of very large icebergs.

This breakup of the ice-shelves has been loudly trumpeted as being the direct result of global warming affecting glacier flow and melting the 70 metre surface thickness of the ice-shelf plus another many tens of metres of submerged ice under the ice-shelf.

I wave my skeptics flag at the "Infragravity" long wave theory being fully responsible for the Antarctic ice shelves breakups.
This skepticism is due to a comment from an Australian researcher in the comments on the WUWT post on the ice shelve breakup.
This very interesting quote from the WUWT comments is from "jerry" in WA and I think is very relevant to the claim about "infragravity" waves and ice-shelf breakup.
And I must admit that I never realised to what extent a deep Antarctic depression could affect sea swells to the extent found by the WA researchers.
Quote:
Where I live – In Western Australia – we see a lot of these infra-gravity waves going past. But in the opposite direction, from Antarctica Northwards. We have very large swell here that can exceed 10 metres (30 feet) at some locations off the coast. I know because it was my job to measure it with directional wave buoys for a number of years.

The source of these waves are the very deep depressions circling the Antarctic continent. I would have thought that these massive wave generators near to Antarctica would have a much greater effect on the Antarctic shoreline than generators half way around the world.

It is also quite possible that an Antarctic depression caused ocean swell as measured above is of such a short crest to crest distance, despite the amplitude or depth of the wave, that it's effect on the ice shelves is limited to only a very small distance into and under the kilometres deep ice shelves.
In contrast, an "infragravity' wave could have a crest to crest distance of possibly tens or hundreds of kilometres which would lift by metres, large, many kilometre deep sections of the ice-shelves thus creating the conditions for very long stress cracks to develop and for the ultimate breaking off of very large sections of the susceptible ice-shelves.

Unfortunately the one factor missing in this article is the actual suggested crest to crest distance of these "infragravity " waves which would answer many questions.
Abstract here
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 14/02/2010 23:01

This is becoming more than a joke... And where are the natural climate change deniers gone in this debate/Forum?

Snow Sparks Climate Change Debate in US

Unprecedented blizzards in the eastern United States have triggered renewed debate about climate change, with some critics using the record snow to attack the concept of global warming. Some experts have been quick to point out that the extreme weather is consistent with a pattern of climate change.

Record-breaking snows in the U.S. capital have proponents and skeptics of climate change in a heated debate.

Many critics of the theory of global warming say the recent blizzards in the Northeastern United States seem more like "global cooling.

But Joseph Romm, a climate change scientist at the Center for American Progress in Washington, says the snow and extreme winter weather conditions are consistent with a general trend of global warming.

Climatologists on both sides of the debate agree no single weather event may be used to prove, or disprove, the existence of climate change.

Romm says the overall warming trend recorded by scientists during the last century was not enough to push winter temperatures above freezing, but he says the rising temperatures and warmer air have caused an increase in the amount of precipitation over the winter. And that fact he says could explain the record snowfall that crippled the U.S. capital and surrounding areas over the past two weeks.

Climatologists like Romm say that as the effects of climate change strengthen over time, we should expect to see more instances of extreme weather conditions.

That could mean more severe droughts, hotter heat waves, and snowier winters in the years ahead.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/env...S-84256697.html
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 14/02/2010 23:14

Nigel Lawson: A climate change sceptic bites back

I have considerable affection for, and some slight connection with, The Independent. More than 40 years ago, when I was editor of the Spectator, I gave a promising young journalist called Andreas Whittam Smith his first column. A decade or so later he founded, and was the first editor of, The Independent. And in recent years my elder son, Dominic, has been contributing a weekly column to the paper.

So it was with sorrow as well as anger that I read the disgraceful story splashed all over the front and second pages of last week's issue, headed "Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers", clearly implying that those think-tanks that question any part of the conventional climate change wisdom are tainted by their dependence on the oil industry. This fell well below the standards first set by Andreas, and which I had come to expect from The Independent.


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/com...ck-1898859.html
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 15/02/2010 07:38

Simmosturf,

The all time record snow accumulation in Washington DC occurred on January 28, 1922, and lead to the collapse of the roof of the Knickerbocker Theatre, killing 98 of the full house of 1000 people within. This tragic event is discussed in many civil engineering textbooks and bore some striking similarities to February 7 this year except that it was an accumulation of 60cms within two hours at a 'warm' -2 to +2 C range, meaning the snow was very heavy and icy. Snowmageddon was only 45-50 cms over half a day, but very impressive and damaging nonetheless. It was also typical of the northern midwest in any normal winter, but where this winter there has been reduced snowfall and no abnormally cold temperatures.

I think when we quite correctly attack the liars in the IPCC we need to be clinical in assembling the correct data on the other side of the debate too, otherwise we just end up with a contest as to who can get it wrong by the largest amount.

The most important snow data in the US for farmers is snowpack accumulation in late winter, as it determines likely run off and is relevant to planning the early spring plantings.

The data does not support your claims of a record winter in the US for either snow or cold temperatures.

In the latest edition of the Capitol Press agricultural bulletin the figures from the NRCS monitors report that on February 4 the Oregon snowpack was 67% of the 30 year average, Washington state was 74%, Idaho was 67% and California was 77%. The only figure to show a strong improvement was California where the snowpack figures represent a break in the previous three years of warm and dry conditions.

These figures are described as consistent with the effects of an El Nino, which locally leads to more precipitation in California, but drier and warmer conditions to the north in Oregon and Washington and into the adjacent mountain states.

Farmers are being advised to plan for relatively limited water supplies this northern summer unless a 'March miracle' recharges the snow pack.

There is a special Water bulletin in the latest edition and both are behind pay walls and contain anti-copy codes which can kill PCs and cause you to reinstall some software if you are unlucky. However I can send you a large file containing the relevant articles if you message me with your preferred email address.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 15/02/2010 14:13

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf

Climatologists like Romm say that as the effects of climate change strengthen over time, we should expect to see more instances of extreme weather conditions.

That could mean more severe droughts, hotter heat waves, and snowier winters in the years ahead.


http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/env...S-84256697.html

I agree somewhat with both of those claims. See Huntington, T. G., (2006), Journal of Hydrology 319: 83-95.

If anyone has any papers they are aware of which are an update on the one above, I would be glad to see them smile.

Also, just something I’ve noticed. Concerning the title of this thread…It’s up to moderators of course, but given the title of this thread clearly indicates it’s about AGW science, I’m just a curious as to why people would posting articles in here without discussing the complexities of the related science. I believe there is already a thread for articles…just an observation (again, I’m not having a go at anyone in particular) smile.

Edit: I might have retracted this post if it had it not been for my insistence on understanding things before making claims about them.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 15/02/2010 17:11

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/new-paper-on/#more-16426

"Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming

Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingewertz – Department of Economics, The Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Israel.

Abstract:

We use statistical methods designed for nonstationary time series to test the anthropogenic theory of global warming (AGW). This theory predicts that an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations increases global temperature permanently. Specifically, the methodology of polynomial cointegration is used to test AGW when global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in 1st differences, whereas greenhouse gas forcings (CO2, CH4 and N2O) are stationary in 2nd differences.

We show that although greenhouse gas forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcings, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated, and AGW is refuted. Although we reject AGW, we find that greenhouse gas forcings have a temporary effect on global temperature. 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."
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/02/2010 14:23

Not quite along the lines of your quote from Joe Romm, nazdek, but fairly relevant to the type of weather and climate conditions that your quote refers to below;

Quote:
That could mean more severe droughts, hotter heat waves, and snowier winters in the years ahead.


From Andrew Orlowski of The Register.; Now IPCC hurricane data is questioned

Quote:
The IPCC continues: "It is more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity." But, as Hatton points out, that conclusion comes from computer climate models, not from the observational data, which show no increase.

"The IPCC goes on to make statements that would never pass peer review," Hatton told us. A more scientifically useful conclusion would have been to ask why there was a disparity. "This differential behaviour to me is very interesting. If it's due to increased warming in one place, and decreased warming in the other - then that's interesting to me."
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 17/02/2010 21:05

I think it is pretty apparent from these graphs that there is a potential problem: Carbon Dioxide and The Industrial Revolution.

If we look at the equation for changes in CO2 in the atmosphere with time, it quite easy to get an appreciation for the issue.

The change in CO2 with time is proportional to the anthropogenic input rate minus the net flux of CO2 between the oceans and atmosphere (determined by the difference between the present levels of CO2 and those used as a baseline, say 280 ppm), minus the net flux between the atmosphere and biosphere (also determined by the difference between the present levels of CO2 and those used as a baseline).

(Source).

It is all very well assuming natural processes are at work; however the question is to what extent do the models take into the account the interference and alteration of the environment by modern post-Industrial man? Man is interfering with:

=> Biodiversity (the biosphere uptake);
=> Coral Reefs (the uptake by marine life);
=> And Contrails (the affects of increased aerosols on atmospheric behaviour).

Just to name a few. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, these influences were minimal or minor in comparison to modern times (withstanding heretical claims).

Additionally, it is greenhouse gases, specifically, which make this planet habitable within the temperature range we have. They are minor, but they are responsible. It is very misleading to continually claim that just because these gases make up less than 4% of the atmosphere by volume that their effects are minor. It completely ignores the physics involved in the emission and absorption of electromagnetic radiation within the atmosphere. I would like to use the Venusian atmosphere as an example, however given its atmospheric chemistry is so different from Earth’s, it not really appropriate.

End (Whatever You Want to Call the Above Explanation).
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/02/2010 10:36

Not AGW but nevertheless quite an interesting take on;

The big picture: 65 million years of temperature swings

From the JoNova blog, a guest article by an Alaskan geologist, David Lappi

Makes for some interesting thinking on a cooling long term global climate but on geological time scales that certainly are unlikely to worry anybody now alive unless, a very, very big "unless" there are actually tipping points, such as that which occurred to bring in the Younger Dryas period where parts of the global climate seemed to plunged into a much colder 1300 year long cold period in perhaps a decade.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/02/2010 13:50

The point is that something is happening to the climate and we don't know what's causing it. Finger pointing or making claims that lack substance and legit science aint going to help smile.

Whatever's going on, we have to deal with it!
Posted by: mobihci

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 23/02/2010 17:35

Originally Posted By: Nazdeck
The following is my understanding, to-date, of the Earth’s Global Annual Mean Energy Budget. I have modelled the figures below and they appear to agree rather well with one another. The figures mentioned are rounded to three decimal places (where I have edited properly). If you are not so interested in the details or do not wish to test the figures below for yourself, this might not be for you.

It is well-establish that the top of the Earth’s atmosphere receives a surface-averaged input from the sun of about 342 W/m2. Of this amount, about 0.702 of the 342 W/m2 SWR (or 240.25 W/m2) is absorbed by the planet on average – this is the total IR radiation emitted to space from both the atmosphere and surface. As a fraction of the LWR emitted by the Earth, this is 0.614 of 390.98 W/m2.

Of the 240.25 W/m2 emitted by the planet, 40 W/m2 LWR is emitted by the surface as direct IR radiation to space. The remaining 0.211, as a fraction of 342 W/m2 (or 72.25 W/m2 SWR) absorbed by the planet is absorbed directly in the visible and UV spectrum by O2, O3 and H2O molecules in the atmosphere. This figure is the result of computer simulations which rely on numerous assumptions about the physical processes at work in the atmosphere. As a fraction of the energy emitted by atmosphere, this is 0.19 multiplied by the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant times the atmospheric temperature (in degrees Kelvin) to the fourth power.

The observed absorption of incoming solar short-wave radiation (SWR) by the atmosphere is up to 30 W/m2 higher than the figure predicted as a result of computer simulations. This is known as the absorption anomaly.

The total LWR emitted by the atmosphere is given by the temperature of the atmosphere to the fourth power multiplied by the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant, which gives 378.18 W/m2. The temperature of the atmosphere is given by the fourth root of 2 to the power of –1 multiplied by the surface air temperature. For a surface air temperature of 15oC, the corresponding atmosphere temperature is 12.6oC. As a fraction of the total 390.98 W/m2 emitted by the surface, 0.088 (or 30.09 W/m2) is emitted towards the surface (from space), 0.123 (or 38.96 W/m2) is emitted to space (from space). As a fraction of the 378.18 W/m2 emitted by the Earth’s atmosphere, 0.088 (or 33.28 W/m2) is emitted towards the surface (from space), 0.103 (or 38.96 W/m2) is emitted to space (from space). And as a fraction of the total 342 W/m2 received by the Earth, this is 0.088 (or 30.09 W/m2) and 0.123 (or 38.96 W/m2).

The total LWR emitted by the atmosphere towards the surface is given by the two components. First, the average global emissivity of the atmosphere, 0.771, is multiplied by the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant and the temperature of the atmosphere to the fourth power, which gives 291.6 W/m2. And secondly, the LWR emitted towards the surface by the atmosphere from space, 33.28 W/m2, is added to this figure to give 324.88 W/m2.

The atmosphere emits 0.038 of the incident SWR it absorbs (or 14.33 W/m2) directly to space. This means a total of 53.30 W/m2 (or 14.33 W/m2 + 38.96 W/m2) is emitted to space by the atmosphere. 324.88 W/m2 emitted back to the surface plus the 53.30 W/m2 emitted to space by the atmosphere gives the total of 378.18 W/m2 emitted by the atmosphere at a temperature of 12.6oC.

The LWR absorbed by atmosphere from surface as a fraction of energy emitted by atmosphere is 0.808, or 305.93 W/m2. The LWR absorbed by atmosphere from surface as a fraction of energy emitted by the surface is 0.782, or 305.93 W/m2. The LWR absorbed by atmosphere from surface, as a fraction of energy emitted by surface multiplied by ratio of surface-to-atmosphere emission is 0.808, or 316.28 W/m2.

The downward component of LWR absorbed by atmosphere from surface, as a fraction of ratio of surface-to-atmosphere emission, is 1.033, or 316.28 W/m2. The upward component of LWR absorbed by atmosphere from surface, as a fraction of ratio of surface-to-atmosphere emission, is 1.033, or 301.46 W/m2. The LWR absorbed by atmosphere from surface, as a fraction of energy emitted by surface, 0.771, or 301.46 W/m2.

The total LWR emitted by the Earth’s surface is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, were the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant is multiplied by the global average surface air temperature to the fourth power. This gives 390.98 W/m2. 0.297 of the 342 W/m2 SWR (or 101.74 W/m2) is reflected and scattered back to space in the UV and visible spectrum from the atmosphere, clouds and the surface. Of this (as a fraction of the 342 W/m2 SWR – 0.208) 71.15 W/m2 is reflected by the atmosphere. 0.148 of the 342 W/m2 SWR (or 50.87 W/m2) is reflected and scattered by clouds in the atmosphere. 0.059 of the 342 W/m2 SWR (or 20.27 W/m2) is reflected by molecules and aerosols in the atmosphere to space. And 0.089471095 of the 342 W/m2 SWR (or 30.59 W/m2) is reflected by the surface to space.

Of the incident 342 W/m2 SWR, 0.491 (or 168 W/m2) reaches the surface. 0.192 of this 168 W/m2 (or 66 W/m2) is absorbed by the surface directly. 0.228 of the 168 W/m2 (or 78 W/m2) becomes LWR evapo-transpiration or turbulent latent heat flux in heating condensed water molecules on the surface (land and oceans) and in the atmosphere (this usually follows rain or wet conditions). And 0.07 of the 168 W/m2 (or 24 W/m2) becomes LWR turbulent sensible heat flux (conduction and convection) in heating air molecules near the surface.

The total IR radiation emitted by H2O, CO2 and clouds to space from the surface and the atmosphere is (66 W/m2 – 40 W/m2) + 78 W/m2 + 24 W/m2 + 72.25 W/m2 = 200.25 W/m2. Of this 200.25 W/m2, 30 W/m2 is emitted by clouds to space (the 30 W/m2 being a subset of the 66 W/m2 IR radiation emitted from the surface and absorbed by the atmosphere), leaving 10 W/m2 emitted directly to space by the surface. 0.15 of the incoming 342 W/m2 SWR (or 51.60 W/m2) is absorbed molecules and aerosols in the atmosphere. 0.03 of the incident 342 W/m2 SWR (or 10.32 W/m2) is absorbed by ozone in the atmosphere. Another 0.03 of the 342 W/m2 SWR (or 10.32 W/m2) is absorbed by clouds in the atmosphere. The 168 W/m2 reaching the surface + 51.6 W/m2 absorbed by molecules and aerosols in the atmosphere + 10.32 W/m2 absorbed by ozone + 10.32 W/m2 absorbed by clouds gives the 240.25 W/m2 absorbed/emitted by the Earth.

The SWR absorbed by the surface + the LW evapo-transpiration (turbulent latent heat flux) + the LW turbulent sensible heat flux + the LW emitted to space by the atmosphere – LW radiation emitted through the atmospheric window to space is given by 0.427 as a fraction of 342 W/m2, which is 166.96 W/m2.


have you considered the cloud cover at any given time v the type of cloud cover at any given time v their interaction/reaction to increased/decreased temperatures to sea temperatures and local air temperatures. ie you can say well cloud cover is 70%, but how much of that is high, low etc and what exactly are their influences on the sea/ground they cover. there is no way it could be possible to calculate that realtime even in a snapshot form. assuptions must be made about oh so many things.

this is not only about the feedback issue, it also directly relates to svensmarks ideas and the other possibilities that ocean cycles have more influence than they are given etc.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 26/02/2010 19:08

From David Archibald; Interesting, controversial in some quarters and to get on a hobby horse once again, a touch frightening as to the possible consequences for humanity's food supplies.

The Warning in the Stars

The above without taking into further account the serious suggestion of increasing global volcanic activity and the cooling that is associated with high volcanic activity affecting the climate over the next few decades after one of the quietest volcanic periods on the planet in recent geological history.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 02/03/2010 16:07

Originally Posted By: mobihci
have you considered the cloud cover at any given time v the type of cloud cover at any given time v their interaction/reaction to increased/decreased temperatures to sea temperatures and local air temperatures. ie you can say well cloud cover is 70%, but how much of that is high, low etc and what exactly are their influences on the sea/ground they cover. there is no way it could be possible to calculate that realtime even in a snapshot form. assuptions must be made about oh so many things.

this is not only about the feedback issue, it also directly relates to svensmarks ideas and the other possibilities that ocean cycles have more influence than they are given etc.

I agree that it is not just a feedback issue, however I don’t think it’s that difficult to find figures which give a good range of estimated values for properties of clouds (albedo, emissivity, cloud cover fraction) and surface features (albedo and emissivity), if you have an idea of what you’re looking for. Certainly, these values would have ranges of validity, which are a given, but having those ranges of validity is an essential part of scientific process which allows us to have some degree of certainty about information, even if it’s theoretical or “ball-park,” which is the nature of many scientific endeavours. In other words, just because we make assumptions does not mean those assumptions are “wrong” just because they are not “right.” In science, it is more pertinent to talk of accuracy and certainty.

All that said we make assumptions within ranges of validity because they are valid within those ranges. It may be useful to read (or re-read) the last long post I presented to get an idea of this “range of validity.” Much of what I have been trying to get across may have been covered in that post.

On another note, the easiest way to get a good idea of physical properties is of course to get out in the field or a laboratory and do the experiments; however this is not always feasible or viable. The alternative is to develop computer models, which can be helpful and provide valuable and useful guidance. The computer models themselves would be based on experimental or experimentally-derived results, which would give them some degree of robustness and realism. Again here though, I would emphasise thinking of models in terms of representations of real-world physical processes, which tend to be case-sensitive, as are the experiments on which they are often based. This is why in the scientific method a “theory” is described as being the result of several successful predictions based on repetitions of the same experiment, which is what models have to take into account (including in the predictions they make). If the invalidity of assumptions in computer models can be demonstrated (by better understanding how the climate works), then they may indeed have issues, otherwise we should try to understand what makes them reasonable (by better understanding how the climate works).

Concerning the possibility of factors hitherto unknown to current science which may be influencing the climate, they are indeed possibilities, however we should not lose sight of the distinction between a reality which is captured in robust theory and a possibility which is merely a speculative term used in the absence of defined boundary conditions.
Posted by: Stevo59

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/03/2010 00:41

All sorts of long term weather records being broken or nearly broken nationally and internationally: heat waves, heavy snow in Europe and north America, floods and droughts. This pattern of more extreme weather was predicted by some scientists 20 years ago, but they were called heretics by most of their peers! The next 20 years will be very interesting to witness indeed as the fat old sun wakes up from its slumber from 2012 onwards!
Posted by: Stevo59

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/03/2010 00:48

Originally Posted By: ROM
Not AGW but nevertheless quite an interesting take on;

The big picture: 65 million years of temperature swings

From the JoNova blog, a guest article by an Alaskan geologist, David Lappi

Makes for some interesting thinking on a cooling long term global climate but on geological time scales that certainly are unlikely to worry anybody now alive unless, a very, very big "unless" there are actually tipping points, such as that which occurred to bring in the Younger Dryas period where parts of the global climate seemed to plunged into a much colder 1300 year long cold period in perhaps a decade.


Interesting, but nothing to do with contemporary changes in climate and the fact that many species and ecosystems, including humans, do not date back 65mya. The geologists only look at deep time which is their only expertise in the climate change debate. Essentially irrelevant to the post-industrial age. The Younger Dryas was a regional cold period, not global.
Posted by: mobihci

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/03/2010 18:06

Originally Posted By: Stevo59
All sorts of long term weather records being broken or nearly broken nationally and internationally: heat waves, heavy snow in Europe and north America, floods and droughts. This pattern of more extreme weather was predicted by some scientists 20 years ago, but they were called heretics by most of their peers! The next 20 years will be very interesting to witness indeed as the fat old sun wakes up from its slumber from 2012 onwards!


weather events have not become more extreme. what has changed over the years has been the population level and the amount of people affected by 'extreme' weather.
Posted by: mobihci

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/03/2010 18:33

Originally Posted By: Nazdeck
Originally Posted By: mobihci
have you considered the cloud cover at any given time v the type of cloud cover at any given time v their interaction/reaction to increased/decreased temperatures to sea temperatures and local air temperatures. ie you can say well cloud cover is 70%, but how much of that is high, low etc and what exactly are their influences on the sea/ground they cover. there is no way it could be possible to calculate that realtime even in a snapshot form. assuptions must be made about oh so many things.

this is not only about the feedback issue, it also directly relates to svensmarks ideas and the other possibilities that ocean cycles have more influence than they are given etc.

I agree that it is not just a feedback issue, however I don’t think it’s that difficult to find figures which give a good range of estimated values for properties of clouds (albedo, emissivity, cloud cover fraction) and surface features (albedo and emissivity), if you have an idea of what you’re looking for. Certainly, these values would have ranges of validity, which are a given, but having those ranges of validity is an essential part of scientific process which allows us to have some degree of certainty about information, even if it’s theoretical or “ball-park,” which is the nature of many scientific endeavours. In other words, just because we make assumptions does not mean those assumptions are “wrong” just because they are not “right.” In science, it is more pertinent to talk of accuracy and certainty.

All that said we make assumptions within ranges of validity because they are valid within those ranges. It may be useful to read (or re-read) the last long post I presented to get an idea of this “range of validity.” Much of what I have been trying to get across may have been covered in that post.

On another note, the easiest way to get a good idea of physical properties is of course to get out in the field or a laboratory and do the experiments; however this is not always feasible or viable. The alternative is to develop computer models, which can be helpful and provide valuable and useful guidance. The computer models themselves would be based on experimental or experimentally-derived results, which would give them some degree of robustness and realism. Again here though, I would emphasise thinking of models in terms of representations of real-world physical processes, which tend to be case-sensitive, as are the experiments on which they are often based. This is why in the scientific method a “theory” is described as being the result of several successful predictions based on repetitions of the same experiment, which is what models have to take into account (including in the predictions they make). If the invalidity of assumptions in computer models can be demonstrated (by better understanding how the climate works), then they may indeed have issues, otherwise we should try to understand what makes them reasonable (by better understanding how the climate works).

Concerning the possibility of factors hitherto unknown to current science which may be influencing the climate, they are indeed possibilities, however we should not lose sight of the distinction between a reality which is captured in robust theory and a possibility which is merely a speculative term used in the absence of defined boundary conditions.


what i mean by not just a feedback issue is that it may not just be a simple factor in the climate as explained by the current set of models. if svensmark is correct, then the major factor driving climate change IS clouds. the ballpark could be in a different state!. the assumptions being made about clouds and their effect are not just about variability, but the whole box and dice. nearly every single figure gained from a radiation budget figure WILL be affected directly by cloud cover/type, and not just by a small figure that can be brushed aside as 'variability'. the 'variability' in this case may be the small amount of ghg changes over time. to say that this set of figures builds the argument is very wrong. the figures are based on a supposition so why not try another set of figures based on not just the variability of clouds (coverage/type/quantity),which is understood very poorly according to the ipcc, but to the possibility that clouds may actually alter the climate more.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 07/03/2010 07:23

The Work of Ferenc Miskolczi (Part 1)

That is to say, the Earth’s atmosphere dynamically keeps its greenhouse effect right at its critical value, regardless of our continuing CO2 emissions, regardless of any change in atmospheric CO2 concentration in the past ten thousand years. Miskolczi’s dynamic constraint keeps the greenhouse effect “climatically saturated”: emitting CO2 into the air cannot increase the normalized greenhouse factor g because any impact of human addition of CO2 is dynamically countered by about 1% decrease of the main greenhouse gas, water vapor (moisture) in the atmosphere. This effect is shown in Miskolczi’s recent presentation based on the NOAA 61 year global atmospheric database.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-work-of-ferenc-miskolczi-part-1/
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 15/03/2010 11:19

Dr. Nicola Scafetta summarizes “why the anthropogenic theory proposed by the IPCC should be questioned”
14032010
Dr. Nicola Scafetta has written an extensive summary of the state of climate science today.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/14/dr...ned/#more-17314
Posted by: aerology

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 15/03/2010 15:23

I have been absent from these blogs for a while, working on a hypothesis of my own about the effects of Lunar declinational tides in the atmosphere and their relationship to tornado and hurricane production. Below is the summation of these efforts so far, I hope you don't mind the lengthy read or the some of the dull basics I needed to include for the general population, to be able to follow the whole train of thought.

http://research.aerology.com/aerology-analog-weather-forecasting-method/

also separate first post on tornado production related to lunar declination complete with graphs.
Richard Holle
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/03/2010 12:53

And another long standing shibboleth of the global warming brigade is taken apart.

Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale wind
farms

Quote:
To explore some of these issues, we use a three-dimensional climate model to simulate the potential climate effects associated with installation of wind-powered generators over vast areas of land or coastal ocean. Using wind turbines to meet 10% or more of global energy demand in 2100, could cause surface warming exceeding 1 ◦ C over land installations. In contrast, surface cooling exceeding 1 ◦ C is computed over ocean installations, but the validity of simulating the impacts of wind turbines by simply increasing the ocean surface drag needs further study. Significant warming or cooling remote from both the land and ocean installations, and alterations of the global distributions of rainfall and clouds also occur. These results are influenced by the competing effects of increases in roughness and decreases in wind speed on near-surface turbulent heat fluxes, the differing nature of land and ocean surface friction, and the dimensions of the installations parallel and perpendicular to the prevailing winds. These results are also dependent on the accuracy of the model used, and the realism of the methods applied to simulate wind turbines


And also Lubos Motl comments in his blog The Reference Frame

"Wind turbines will add up to 0.15 °C to global mean temperature".

Now will somebody beat Rudd, Wong and their fellow traveling assorted environmental mobs over the head with this before we pour even more increasingly scarce tax payer funded resources into another what is increasingly being proven from science based data as just another technologically dead end climate warming hole.

And from WUWT; Corned grief: biofuels may increase CO2

And from Cornell University;
Quote:
Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy
By Susan S. Lang

ITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.

"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."

Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).

In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:

corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:

soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix. Although additional costs are incurred, such as federal and state subsidies that are passed on to consumers and the costs associated with environmental pollution or degradation, these figures were not included in the analysis.

"The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products."

Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming," Pimentel says. He points out that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations.

"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment," says Pimentel. "Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits." He says the country should instead focus its efforts on producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion.


The energy inputs required to grow a crop, wheat in this case, versus the amount of energy in the actual crop was actually researched in a couple of studies back in the 1980's by a couple of universities, one of which I think was possibly Melbourne Uni and the other was a Uni in the USA.
I remember reading those studies and was somewhat taken aback to find that the energy inputs from fossil fuel requirements plus the energy allocated to that crop required to mine and process the ores, build the farm equipment, mine, manufacture and process the fertilizers, manufacture the chemicals and fuels required to the plant, grow, harvest, transport and process the grain into food was about equal to the amount of energy actually available in the grain.

Run that grain through another couple of processes to get ethanol, processes which invariably have quite significant energy loses in themselves and the numbers just don't stack up in any way as to the overall efficiency of processing grain into a fuel for use in engines that only use perhaps 35% of the available energy in that fuel in any case.
Plain common sense and a modicum of personal research doesn't seem to be even a small part of the current politician's [ of all stripes ] repertoire.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/03/2010 13:12

Antarctica once had tropical climate, scientists say
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/03/2010 13:27

Originally Posted By: mobihci
what i mean by not just a feedback issue is that it may not just be a simple factor in the climate as explained by the current set of models. if svensmark is correct, then the major factor driving climate change IS clouds. the ballpark could be in a different state!. the assumptions being made about clouds and their effect are not just about variability, but the whole box and dice. nearly every single figure gained from a radiation budget figure WILL be affected directly by cloud cover/type, and not just by a small figure that can be brushed aside as 'variability'. the 'variability' in this case may be the small amount of ghg changes over time. to say that this set of figures builds the argument is very wrong. the figures are based on a supposition so why not try another set of figures based on not just the variability of clouds (coverage/type/quantity),which is understood very poorly according to the ipcc, but to the possibility that clouds may actually alter the climate more.


Regarding small changes (variability) in atmospheric dynamics and cloud properties, this would be an example of sensitive dependence on initial conditions, which is phenomenon common to Chaos Theory. I agree that just a small change in the initial conditions can drastically change the long-term behaviour of a system. However, such a small amount of difference in a measurement may be considered experimental noise, background noise or an inaccuracy of the equipment in a standard experiment. These things are impossible to avoid in even the most isolated lab. With a starting number of say 2, the final result can be entirely different from the same system, with a starting value of 2.000001. I would therefore consider it somewhat unrealistic to expect climate models to pick up on these kinds of changes when they cannot even be discerned in field and laboratory observations.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/03/2010 15:39

Albedo changes will likely contribute way more than any CO2 small increases according to science calculations.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/03/2010 16:51

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
Albedo changes will likely contribute way more than any CO2 small increases according to science calculations.

I'm curious, how so?
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/03/2010 17:12

"The Earthsine project is producing some very interesting results. Notably, that the Earth’s Albedo has risen in the past few years, and by doing reconstructions of the past albedo, it appears that there was a significant reduction in Earth’s albedo leading up to a lull in 1997. 1998 has been touted as one of the warmest years on record, and the time lag may have had to do with the thermal inertia of the oceans. Then the albedo increased, making the earth more reflective. Clouds have the greatest potential for changing albedo on a short time scale.

Reconstructed annual reflectance anomalies, Δp* (black) with respect to the mean anomaly for the regression calibration period, 1999-2001 (gray band). The large error bars result from the seasonal variability of the Earth’s albedo, which can be 15-20%. Also plotted (blue) are the ES-observed annual anomalies for 1999-2003 and 1994-1995. The right-hand vertical scale shows the deficit in global SW forcing relative to 1999-2001. The red solid bar represents the accumulated forcing (in W / m2) attributed to the greenhouse gases concentration increase over the last 100 years, from the International Panel for Climate Change (2001).


Image credit: Earthshine Project, BBSO.

The most interesting thing here is that the albedo forcings, in watts/sq meter seem to be fairly large. Larger than that of all manmade greenhouse gases combined:

Carbon dioxide: 1.5 Watts per square meter.
Methane: 0.5 Watts per square meter.
Nitrous oxide: 0.2 Watts per square meter.
Halocarbons: 0.2 Watts per square meter.
Total from all greenhouse gases: 2.4 Watts per square meter. "
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 17/03/2010 20:17

CO2 does not cause dangerous Global warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl0F6hFnmPs&feature=player_embedded
Posted by: dcon

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 17/03/2010 22:47

as i study engineering at the moment, i am studying models, both proccess and data driven models. data driven models, as i understand it, are very poor at forecasting into the future (i.e. extrapolation). they are also only as good as the data as is fed into them; if bad data is fed into them, they will make bad predictions.

my younger brother went to the bom in SA as part of a yr 11 school excursion and (of course) the talk they gave to the school group was about climate change. the man apparently said that "data is fed into the models" which then is used to produce the graphs. this would seem to indicate that many if not most of the models used to forecast the future warming are data driven rather than process driven. if this is the case, then they are woefully inaccurate because any small inaccuracy in the temperature measurements over the last 100 years, would result in major errors when the models are extrapolated. this error would also get larger very quickly the further into the future the model is extrapolated.

does anyone know how the models are produced? is it only using temperature data? Or is there an attempt to understand atmospheric proccess, in the developement of these models?
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/03/2010 11:56

dcon, try the excellent Norwegian site, Climate4you for a lot of neutral climate information and also info on climate models.
The late John Daly's site also has an expose on where the climate models break down.
And just google "IPCC models" for a number of sites dealing with climate modelling and models.

I might add that my plant breeding friends in our local large agriculture research centre at Horsham, the Grain's Innovation Park with a staff of some 200 researchers and assistants who use very sophisticated world class models all the time in their work on plant breeding genetics and all other aspects of plant breeding are absolutely scathing about the ability of [ climate ] models to predict the future climate in any sort of meaningful fashion.
A couple of those guys, personal friends, are regarded as being amongst the top level of plant breeders and gene transfer modelling in the world so they really know what they are on about then it comes to models and modelling and they are the ones who are the most scathing of all about the claims of some supposed and precisely predicted future global warming that is projected decades into the future, all of which is based entirely on the output of some unverified climate models.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 25/03/2010 08:24

RSS MSU: 0.05 °C of month-on-month cooling

The RSS MSU satellite data for February 2010 are out.
The global anomaly is +0.588 °C which is 0.052 °C lower than the January 2010 anomaly. The newest February 2010 reading is also a whopping 0.148 °C cooler than the warmest February reading on their record, namely +0.736 °C in February 1998.

While January 2010 was 0.09 °C warmer than January 1998, the average of January 2010 and February 2010 is already cooler than the corresponding two months of 1998 so it seems more likely than not that 2010 will be cooler than 1998. The ongoing El Nino is still somewhat strong but already measurably weaker than the 1997-1998 El Nino, so that's what you would expect.

The anomaly in February 2010 was also cooler than January 2007 and four warmer months in 1998.

February 2010 was somewhat unusually warm in the tropics between -20°S and +20°N where the anomaly was +1.015 °C and extremely cool in the Continental U.S. where the anomaly was -1.771 °C.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/rss-msu-005-c-of-month-on-month-cooling.html
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/03/2010 08:08

Climate 'deniers' accuse journal of censorship

The latest debate on climate science to emerge centres on a paper that suggests humans played no role in the recent warming trend and that El Nino activity is mostly to blame.

But a group of climate scientists say that is false, misleading and that the data has been manipulated by climate deniers.

Central to the paper, published in the journal of Geophysical Research last July, was that the southern oscillation index, which is a measure of El Nino activity, was the most likely influence on global temperatures changing.

The senior author of the report, IT analyst John Mclean, says man has had little impact on global warming.

"The major force seems to be probably the southern oscillation, though you've also got to think that maybe that is just an indicator of something else. Whatever's driving the southern oscillation therefore drives temperature," he said.

"Figure seven from our original paper showed there's really not much room in there for man to do anything about it.

"As the temperature's going up and down pretty much in synchronisation with the southern oscillation seven months earlier, I can't see that man plays much role at all."

Mr Mclean says the variability in the southern oscillation index accounts for as much as 70 per cent of the change in global temperature.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/26/2857685.htm
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 10/04/2010 13:06

Proof Why Global Warming Alarmists Are Mathematically Wrong

As I have learned more and more about the ’science’ and ‘math’ that is the foundation of the man-made global warming (AGW) theory, the more I realize how amateurish that science and math really is. For those of us who deal day in and day out in complex physical systems, driven by multiple natural forces that are working on scales that few humans can get their heads around (e.g., the exploration of space), the case for global warming is incredibly flawed.

What I will do in this long and technical leaning post is identofy where the global human induced warming(AGW) math completely falls apart, bringing down the entire house of cards that is the AGW theory. This is different from what other skeptics are doing by trying to reproduce the flawed process of creating a global index for today and then running back to 1880. In my view, the approach used to create a global index from land based sensors is fatally flawed, and we can prove it beyond a shadow of any doubt.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12246
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 10/04/2010 22:48

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
Proof Why Global Warming Alarmists Are Mathematically Wrong


This is just my view on things, but I don't think that title is particularly helpful, i.e. it does not invite discussion.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/04/2010 21:15

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
CO2 does not cause dangerous Global warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl0F6hFnmPs&feature=player_embedded

If you think about it critically, it obviously doesn't. And I wouldn't use the term "dangerous" to describe something as life-giving as CO2 anyway.

Can I politely ask, generically-speaking, whatever happened to critical and constructive debate in this thread? Surely if you want to get your facts straight about AGW, this is the place to do it!?
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/04/2010 22:05

I am still a little puzzled that the satelite readings seem to suggest ongoing and unrelenting warming at almost all levels of the atmosphere.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
Posted by: Arnost

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/04/2010 22:28

Yes Snowmi - GISS as well has now released March temps and they are the second highest on record so there's corroboration. But yes it is interesting that we have the by far the hottest trimonthly (Jan Feb Mar) when we certainly had some coldish weather in the Northern Hemisphere...
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 20/04/2010 07:22

Very interesting but why haven't the media jumped onto this information?


http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/powerpoints/miskolczi.pps
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 23/04/2010 16:04

From ; Popular Technology.net

700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

Check it out for yourselves. There are some big names in science in there.
A list of some 700 papers and abstracts from those papers.

But as usual unfortunately for a lot of science these days the full articles in a lot of cases are behind paywalls or demand registration.
Posted by: SBT

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 25/04/2010 10:14

We are all saved
Posted by: SBT

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 25/04/2010 10:15

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h5ckwfAS7-VcACOIpspAQt9xLbxg Whale Poo to the rescue and it was discoverd by an Australian too. grin
Posted by: NotsohopefulPete

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 25/04/2010 11:17

This is my first contribution to this thread. of couse climate change is talked about by many including my own friends and family and others and I usually listen and don't say much. The problem I have with the whole subject is what is good climate and what is bad? I have conluded that that there seems to be a belief that in the past,say, up to the 1980's was a golden age of climate that every change is disaster. When you look at QLD, if climate change is occurring it has actually become a lot safer to live especially near the coast. Why would we want to go back to the type of weather of the past when cyclones ang severe flooding was much more common. If some of the events that have happened in QLD's history happened now the results would be terrible.
Posted by: Keith

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 25/04/2010 11:46

Well, the alarmists are always telling us we should move away from the coast because they think sealevels are going to rise. We even have local councils basing zoning and other town planning laws on it. In Sydney we've been told that everywhere from Manly to Kirribilli will be inundated.

The fools. The sealevel at Fort Denison, in Sydney Harbour, hasn't risen in the 200+ years we have been here, and certainly not in the time of 'AGW'. You don't need science or the 'wisdom' of the GW Illuminati to work that out.
Posted by: SBT

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 26/04/2010 00:00

Yep nothing happening with the huge amounts of coral bleaching, increased frequency and intensity of cyclones, sea level changes, acidifcation of the oceans and the worlds average temprature is actually falling, sea ice is yet again increasing in density and coverage, the Himilayian glaciers are not melting as quickly as some would have you believe and as a result of the leaked emails the worlds peak body of climate scientists have been shown to be data fiddling numpties who can not abide a contary view point and attempted to blackmail people into toeing their line. All in all I would put it to you that the bubble has well and truely burst on AGW and to prove it try and find one consesus that came out of Copenhagen. It was doomed to failure from the start.

Carbon credits/taxation is nothing but a thinly disguised user pays tax on everything we do.

Alternative renewable energy is a myth, an expensive one at that but still a myth.
Solar/Wind/Tidal/Geothermal all have huge gaping holes in capacity and efficiency and won't put the smallest dimple in our future or even present energy needs.

No country in the world is going to tax it's citizens to bankruptcy for a flawed theory and the worlds leaders all know that.

If you are looking for the right answers start with a couple of simple questions.

Who benefits the most from AGW if it is happening?
Who benefits the most iof it isn't happening?

Is it the citizens?
Is it the governments?
Is it big business?
Is it the planet?
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 26/04/2010 09:25

Feeling grumpy this morning SBT! ?

But you are spot on the money!
Posted by: tom2222

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 26/04/2010 10:37

Originally Posted By: Sir BoabTree
the worlds average temprature is actually falling


did it start falling yesterday?
Posted by: Shultzy

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 26/04/2010 12:12

No, months ago.
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/04/2010 23:16

Originally Posted By: ShultzCity
No, months ago.


It actually started after the 98 El Nino.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/04/2010 08:39

Melting ice makes the Arctic a vicious circle

EVERYONE knows how much hotter it feels to wear a black T-shirt, rather than a white one, on a warm day.

Dr Screen said white ice reflects a lot of sunlight, but as it melts due to man-made warming from greenhouse gas emissions, the dark water that is exposed absorbs more heat, which in turn, melts more ice, and so on.

The amount of Arctic sea ice was at a record low in the summer of 2007, down about 40 per cent.

Although it has recovered slightly since, the long-term trend is down, he said. "We're heading towards a situation where the Arctic Sea will be ice-free in summer."

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technol...00429-tssb.html
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/04/2010 11:40

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
The amount of Arctic sea ice was at a record low in the summer of 2007, down about 40 per cent.

Although it has recovered slightly since, the long-term trend is down, he said.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technol...00429-tssb.html


I agree with that. I also think it is inappropriate to look at records of less than 20 years and consider them reasonable representations of longer-term trends. Thus making claims about temperatures dropping since the year 2000, or whenever, is an inadequate reflection of what is happening climatologically on long-term scales. Also, I have my doubts regarding influences climatologically due to the Urban Heat Island Effect.
Posted by: Keith

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/04/2010 12:25

I don't think most people who make those statements think that they are representative of long term trends. The variations are cyclical.

What remains is this politically motivated assumption that any warming is man's fault. That appears to be the basis for all that the alarmists follow it with. People who have a more balanced view maintain that there are warming and cooling cycles..and that global warming, as the GW lobby defines it, is a total myth.
Posted by: SBT

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/04/2010 14:10

Hear hear Kieth. Well said.

I watched part of Andrew Bolt's interview on the Channel whatever 7PM Project the other night where he made a pretty good account for himself and showed up a couple of panel memebers as alarmists when he attacked a couple of their comments which where along the lines of "My children will die if we don't do something today" nonsense.

Andrew claimed that the overall global warming for the last 100 years was 0.7C. Not a huge amount by any stretch of the immagination. He also shirt fronted, albeit verbally, one of the um north american panelists, who called him a denier and linked it to being called a holucost denier. Something I am very much against. You cannot label somebody as a denier just because you think you are right. This is a tactic that many warmists have been using to attack those like myself who are skeptical of the whole AGW theory.

And today there was another numpty on ABC Radio sprouting rubbish about renewable energy, carbon taxes and KRudds backflip on the ETS being basically dooming the planet. The interviewer tried to ask him about how we might convert to a renewable (God I hate that nonsense word) energy supply and he started prattling on about wind, solar and geothermal providing all the energy we need but when asked where the money was comming from to build this he couldn't say.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/04/2010 17:06

Originally Posted By: Nazdeck
Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
The amount of Arctic sea ice was at a record low in the summer of 2007, down about 40 per cent.

Although it has recovered slightly since, the long-term trend is down, he said.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technol...00429-tssb.html


I agree with that. I also think it is inappropriate to look at records of less than 20 years and consider them reasonable representations of longer-term trends. Thus making claims about temperatures dropping since the year 2000, or whenever, is an inadequate reflection of what is happening climatologically on long-term scales. Also, I have my doubts regarding influences climatologically due to the Urban Heat Island Effect.

Edit: To be read without taking life too seriously.

Hopefully that clarifies smile.
Posted by: Keith

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/04/2010 17:07

Quote:
The interviewer tried to ask him about how we might convert to a renewable (God I hate that nonsense word) energy supply and he started prattling on about wind, solar and geothermal providing all the energy we need but when asked where the money was comming from to build this he couldn't say.

Yes. The usual Utopian castles in the air, based on the assumption that man can fix the world.

Without saying we shouldn't try to make the world a better place, why don't they take stock of the historical fact that man has been stuffing up for 6000 years and by current world scenarios, isn't getting any better at it (ie, at not stuffing it up)?

The only thing certain people are getting better at, is to bludgeon everyone else into enforced complicity with their idea of Utopia...something I suspect is all that justifies the existence of some politicians. Take GW away, and they don't have much else to live for.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/04/2010 17:45

... Some of the Science on Ocean Acidification
...
Posted by: marakai

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 30/04/2010 22:35

Originally Posted By: Nazdeck


Some Scary "Science" Nazdeck, Not very realistic tho, sure there might have been some change in the benchmarked ph value of the Oceans but the effect overall is non existent, Once again the threat is amplified with numerous what if studies funded by Tax payers and utilised by people that need the threat to sustain their study's.

I am not by the way accusing this particular paper of such things but the Acid Oceans argument has recently become a familiar catch cry of the AGW proponents and exists along side with little credible empirical proof as well.

Marine organisms regulate their intake of Calcium thru a membrane and take or leave it as they need, If they need more they take more, vis versa, such scare stories that lead us to believe that Acid is eating away the poor innocent marine animals are nothing more than that, Scare Stories.

I invite you to provide any actual evidence for such findings, any documented proof that such a thing is happening or will do in our lifetime.

The current Ocean pH level is 8.105 (1994 level)Most aquarium fish that I know of personally can cope with anything from pH 5 to pH 9 a huge range considering the logarithmic value of pH
The current value is nowhere near neutral and will not be for a very very long time if ever.

To me it is nothing more than another rung in the ladder of alarmist strategy that "Some" people buy into.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/05/2010 10:29

From Science Daily; "Ocean Bacteria Can Harvest Energy from Sunlight for Survival"

Sea water contains about an average mind boggling Billion bacteria per liter of sea water.
It now seems that a good proportion of those bacteria have the capabilities of using sunlight in a process somewhat similar to photosynthesis in plants.
And in doing so unsuspected CO2 production sources and CO2 sinks from this immense mass of ocean bacteria all come into play in supposedly calculating the global CO2 sources and sinks.

The uncovering of this previously unknown example of just another of nature's myriad diversity of life and which is just another example of the immensity of nature's diversity in all it's complication and infinite complexity.
We can't and won't understand all the factors that drive the global climate for generations yet to come.

And it shows yet again the impossibility and the stupidity of trying to change the Earth's climate through the now so called decarbonisation of our economy.

"Decarbonisation"! The terms "Global warming / Climate change" have lost their "catastrophic" impact with the public so another fancy name has to be dreampt up by the eco cults and AGW advocates to keep up their influence and maintain their power and wealth base.

And we see what nature has done as above, just another in the continuing train of new examples of nature's complexity and yet we still have fools on this planet who believe that they can explain in great detail what will happen to the climate and CO2 levels in a hundred years time and even bigger fools who believe they can change the Earth's climate and very nature itself with geo-engineering in the pursuit of a climate nirvana which in their infinite foolishness are creations of their own egos and their own beliefs.
And they propose to do this without any attempts to consider the hopes, dreams and aspirations of the rest of the 6 3/4 billions of the human race.
After all they are Climate Scientists, members of a tiny elite group who in their infinite new found wisdom know what is best for the rest of humanity!
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/05/2010 12:43

Does not matter how you cut it, bacteria or no bacteria CO2 is going up faster than in any measurable geologic history of the Earth. How much this impacts the climate is the question, almost nil?, a lot?, or somewhere in between?. Still no evidence at this time to rule out a significant impact, I am still waiting on that evidence and will be happy to see it if it exists. Still a lot more evidence that only confirms the climate impact.

Originally Posted By: ROM
From Science Daily; "Ocean Bacteria Can Harvest Energy from Sunlight for Survival"

Sea water contains about an average mind boggling Billion bacteria per liter of sea water.
It now seems that a good proportion of those bacteria have the capabilities of using sunlight in a process somewhat similar to photosynthesis in plants.
And in doing so unsuspected CO2 production sources and CO2 sinks from this immense mass of ocean bacteria all come into play in supposedly calculating the global CO2 sources and sinks.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/05/2010 13:12

Here's your evidence snowy

The Science of Global Warming in Perspective

History of AGW Fraud. For most of the twentieth century, scientists were unconcerned about global warming, because carbon dioxide saturates (saturation explained below) and cannot do more heating. Whatever CO2 did in the past, adding more CO2 cannot change anything. But then global warming was dug up by environmentalists, and rationalizers took another look at the science and said, maybe saturation does not occur at the top of the atmosphere. As time went on, every element of the science was contrived to promote global warming alarmism.
History of AGW Fraud, by Marc Sheppard

http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/05/2010 14:00

Thanks for that Simmonsturf, Yes there should be a saturation point for the effect of CO2. However the link also points to this statement...
http://www.nov55.com/equil.html#nature
"The near perfect gradient of temperatures with height in the atmosphere is the signature of radiation going around the greenhouse gasses instead of through them."
So on the one hand all that can be absorbed is absorbed while on the other hand non is absorbed.
I still think though that the temperature gradient could be an important piece of evidence against AGW, since as far as we know it has not changed.
I wonder what sort of temperature gradient is found on Venus?.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/05/2010 14:38

I also found this which is some food for thought...

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm

In fact on Venus there is a temperature gradient quite similar to Earth despite all the CO2 and despite the fact that the pressure is so high at the surface. What I notice is that in fact Earth Pressure is found at 49.5km while Earth temperature is found at 54km. So in fact the temperature at Earth pressure is much higher than on Earth something like being almost 5km below sea level or about 67deg C from my interpolation.

From this I could deduce that if CO2 was say 96% of the atmosphere then the temperature on the Earth could be 67deg on average. This logicaly implies that more CO2 will raise temperatures. However we have a long way to go yet to be like Venus since our concentration is 2400 times less on Earth than Venus. This means that in fact to get that extra 52deg of warming we would have to get to 96% which means an increase of about 0.02 deg for every Earth concentration of CO2. So for a doubling of CO2 would only raise Earth temps by 0.02deg.

Well if my logic is right then I am quite happy with that.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/05/2010 15:05

Just one more little problem with my logic above, if its true that one Earth CO2 concentration is enough to raise the temp from -15 to +15 (+30deg) then I should apply that curve where the CO2 has a diminishing effect with conentration. So in fact it may only take another 2 Earth concentrations to raise the temp say the next 20deg before starting to taper off towards the 96%, which would be an absolute disaster.

Still too many loose calculations here, I just do not know, could still be a small effect or large effect.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/05/2010 16:02

Still a few more errors I made above Venus is 108-109 million km from the Sun while Earth is 146-152 million km that makes an almost 2 fold increase in solar energy to start with for Venus. What then would Earth temperature be given a 2 fold increase in solar energy?. If that would come to 67deg then once again we have proven that more CO2 does not matter. How would you calculate the new temperature figure for Earth?.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/05/2010 16:25

Just some more logic again;
Given a near doubling of solar radiation I think would imply an increase in temperature by square root of 2 or about 1.4 on the Kelvin value. Given the Earth temp from space is 254K then 1.4 x 254K = about 355K which is 81deg C which is more than my estimated 67deg max. Therefore once again I have that extra CO2 does not raise temps based on the Venus model.

I hope that is right, then again there is no problem with CO2.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 09/05/2010 09:04

Something worth thinking about when considering the science of AGW.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2010/2892138.htm#transcript

I would be happy to hear if someone can demolish my logic in my above posts, so far I have not thought of anything new to further modify my view.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 11/05/2010 15:32

Originally Posted By: snowmi
Does not matter how you cut it, bacteria or no bacteria CO2 is going up faster than in any measurable geologic history of the Earth. How much this impacts the climate is the question, almost nil?, a lot?, or somewhere in between?. Still no evidence at this time to rule out a significant impact, I am still waiting on that evidence and will be happy to see it if it exists. Still a lot more evidence that only confirms the climate impact.

It interesting…it seems, as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, plants appear to need less of the protein they have for processing CO2, because CO2 becomes more abundant. This means they produce less of these proteins, which is not so good for us because plants could become less nutritious. And as a result of having to allocate less energy to processing life-sustaining nutrients, they are able to increase the energy they allocate to defending themselves, which means they could potential become more toxic and less palatable. So while it is good for plants, there is a flip side to increasing CO2 levels concerning plants.

I think one of main issues with AGW is our understanding of absorption of infrared radiation from the surface. 96% of gases in the atmosphere are made up on non-greenhouse gases. The remaining 4% are greenhouse gases, of which CO2 makes up 10%. These gases absorb in a way that leads to the surface temperature being 33 C higher than it would be otherwise. That’s 4%. To my eye, that gives a real appreciation of the potential 10% CO2 can have in 4% volume of greenhouse gases. I believe the impact of increasing CO2 concentrations ecologically is quantitatively currently at 30%.

Originally Posted By: snowmi
Something worth thinking about when considering the science of AGW.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2010/2892138.htm#transcript.

This excerpt is also interest:

“As for proper scientific process, there is no reason to believe that it has not been followed in the case of climate change. While there have been suggestions by some dissenters that there is a conspiracy or mass delusion amongst the majority of scientists, no compelling evidence has been provided for such claims, nor is it likely that that could be the case. Suggestions of impropriety by some scientists, even if proven, are not evidence of a grand conspiracy and the claim of conspiracy in this case contradicts at least two of the previous rules.

Since both questions have been answered in the affirmative, the theory of climate change by human-induced carbon forcing is likely to be correct, to the best of the current scientific understanding.”

Originally Posted By: snowmi
I would be happy to hear if someone can demolish my logic in my above posts, so far I have not thought of anything new to further modify my view.


For assist in your calculations, you may need to consider the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere and the effects of the oceans on that partial pressure. Unfortunately, there are no oceans on Venus (although it could still be emitting CO2 into its atmosphere) which makes drawing comparisons substantially more difficult.

This information about Venus might be a bit old, but it could still be relevant:

Venus has the most massive atmosphere of all the terrestrial planets. Its atmosphere is composed of about 96.5% CO2 and 3.5% N2. Trace amounts of a number of other gases have been detected, including CO, SO, H2O, Argon and Helium. The atmospheric pressure at the planet’s surface varies with the surface elevation but averages about 90 bars. This is the same pressure found at a depth of about 1 km in the oceans. The upper atmosphere, extending from the fringes of space down to around 100 km above the surface, varies in temperature from a maximum of or 298 K (25 C) in the daytime to a minimum of 123 K (-150 C) at night. In the middle atmosphere, temperatures increase smoothly from roughly 173 K (-100 C) at 100 km altitude to roughly 263 K (-10 C) at the top of the continuous cloud deck. This cloud deck lies at an altitude of more than 60 km. Below the cloud tops the temperature continues to increase sharply through the lower atmosphere, or troposphere, reaching about 733 K (-450 C) at the planet’s surface. This temperature is higher than the melting point of lead. The clouds the enshroud Venus are enormously thick. The main cloud deck extends from roughly 45 km altitude to nearly 70 km. There are also thin hazes that extend several km below the lowest clouds and around 20 km above the highest. The upper is somewhat divided up into three layers. All of them are quite tenuous; an observer in even the densest cloud regions would be able to see objects at distances of several km. The clouds are bright when viewed from above, reflecting about 85% of the sunlight striking them. The microscopic particles that make up the Venusian clouds consist of liquid droplets and perhaps also solid crystals. The dominant material that has been identified in the clouds is highly concentrated sulphuric acid. Other materials that may exist include solid sulphur and nitrosylsulfuric acid (NOHSO4). The cloud particles range in size from less than 0.1 microns to more than 1 microns. The reasons that some cloud-top regions appear dark when viewed at ultraviolet wavelength are not fully know or understood. Materials that may be present in minute quantities at the cloud tops and may be responsible for absorbing ultraviolet light in some regions include sulphur dioxide, chlorine and solid sulphur.

The circulation of the Venusian atmosphere is quite remarkable and is unique among the planets. Despite the very slow rotation of the planet, the cloud features high in the atmosphere circle Venus completely in only about 4 days. The wind at the cloud tops blow from the east to west at a velocity of about 100 m/s (360 km/h). The enormous westward wind velocity decreases markedly with decreasing height, with winds at the planet’s surface being quite sluggish. Surface winds typically blow at a velocity of no more than 10 m/s ( 4 km/h). The cause of the rapid rotation of the Venusian upper atmosphere is not well understood and remains a focus of scientific controversy and research. Not much information is known about wind directions at the planet’s surface itself; only a small amount of data has been compiled from observations of wind-blown materials. Despite low surface wind velocities, the great density of the atmosphere enables these winds to move lose, fine-grained materials, producing features resembling and dunes that have been seen in some radar images. These features suggest that surface winds be directed dominantly towards the equator in both hemispheres. This pattern is consistent with the idea that hemispheric-scale Hadley cells, or circulation patterns, exist in the atmosphere. Under this hypothesis, atmospheric gases rise upwards owing to heating at the planet’s equator, are transported at high altitudes towards the poles, sink to the surface as they cool at higher latitudes, and flow towards the equator along the surface until they warm and rise again. The equatorward flow at the surface may be responsible for orientations of the wind features that are seen.

Above the main body of the atmosphere lies the ionosphere. As the name implies, the ionosphere is composed of ions, or charge particles, produced by the absorption of ultraviolet solar radiation and by the impact of the solar wind on the upper atmosphere. The primary ions are positive O2[+] and CO2[+].

I get the impression from out current understanding of the Venusian atmosphere and that of the Earth’s that comparisons between the two, at this point, may be mostly inadmissible.

Lastly, here are few aspects of anthropogenic global warming theory which I think are valid:
  • The greenhouse effect is a phenomenon of the atmosphere, not the surface.
  • If the atmosphere is warming, then we have a greenhouse effect.
  • The gases than lead to greenhouse warming are greenhouse gases, which comprise up to 4% of the atmosphere by volume.
  • Non-greenhouse gases (the remaining 96%) do not lead to a significant warming of the atmosphere, including from incoming solar radiation.
  • It is the conversion of short-wave solar radiation to long-wave thermal energy after being absorbed by and emitted from the surface that is important for us.
  • Thermal infrared heat energy must be emitted from the surface for there to be a resultant greenhouse warming.
  • The oceans cover about 70% of the Earth’s surface.
  • The ability of the oceans to absorb incoming solar energy is orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere.
  • The more solar energy the oceans absorb, the more they expand.
  • Energy emitted from the oceans can quite readily heat the atmosphere when absorbed by greenhouse gases.
  • Expanding oceans lead to a rising sea level, even without the melting of ice or snow over land.
  • More water evaporates into the atmosphere.
  • As the oceans expand and their temperatures increase, more CO2 is released into the atmosphere due to changes in the partial pressure of CO2 at the ocean-atmosphere interface.
  • Increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will cause the ocean to take up more CO2.
  • This feedback in which the oceans absorb more and more CO2 from the atmosphere reduces the oceans’ CO2 buffering capacity because of differences in mixing rate of CO2 in the oceans and atmosphere.
  • The oceans’ CO2 buffering capacity is the ability of the oceans to absorb CO2.
  • Increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will cause an increase in greenhouses gases.
  • 0.39% volume of the atmosphere divided by 4% volume of the atmosphere gives 9.75%. This is the percent of CO2 among greenhouse gases. 10% of 33 C is 3 C.
  • Mixing in the oceans takes hundreds to thousands of years, whereas mixing in the atmosphere occurs in days.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 11/05/2010 18:26

That is a great post Nazdeck, interesting thanks for posting. Interesting about the plants and how they react to more CO2. Also that Venus atmosphere is certainly complex.

Just a question to you or anyone who might know, how does that black body calculation that was done for Earth work out for Venus?. The calculation was suposed to have proved the 33deg of warming from green house gases for Earth. However how much does the calculation work out for Venus?. I susspect that the Venus calculation could actually prove the Earth one wrong. How much LWR is detected from Venus compared to how much energy enters the planets atmosphere?, how does that compare to Earth.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 11/05/2010 22:58

Originally Posted By: snowmi
Just a question to you or anyone who might know, how does that black body calculation that was done for Earth work out for Venus?. The calculation was suposed to have proved the 33deg of warming from green house gases for Earth. However how much does the calculation work out for Venus?. I susspect that the Venus calculation could actually prove the Earth one wrong. How much LWR is detected from Venus compared to how much energy enters the planets atmosphere?, how does that compare to Earth.

I have not actually done the black-body calculation for Venus yet, though I suspect it would be pretty straightforward.

The Venusian atmosphere reflects roughly 85% of incoming solar radiation; therefore it absorbs about 15% solar energy.

The amount of solar energy incident at the top of the Venusian atmosphere (in W/m^2) is the sum of…

(Radiation in W/m^2 (per unit wavelength)*4*Pi*(radius of the Sun)^2) divided by (4*Pi*(Distance to Centre of Venus minus Radius of Venus (including its atmosphere)))

…Over all wavelengths, which works out to be about 653 W/m^2 (or 1.9 times what Earth gets).

So 85% of 653 W/m^2 is 555 W/m^2, which means roughly 98 W/m^2 reaches the surface.

The surface temperature is 733 K, making the surface emission (without an emissivity, i.e. as a black body) the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant (5.67051e-8 W/m^2/K^4) times 733^4, which gives roughly 16,370 W/m^2…which mean Venus is emitting more energy than is receives (about 167 times as much). This may suggest Venus is cooling, or rather, far earlier in its formation than the Earth. This does not seem particularly plausible short of massive and sustained volcanic eruptions noticeable on the surface…images from the surface don’t seem to show much activity.

Alternatively, Venus is receiving a hell of a lot of back radiation from the CO2 atmosphere, i.e. 16,370 Watts minus 98, or about 16,270. This seems to mean the greenhouse effects alone is very substantial.

166 times the back radiation, while here on Earth we have say, 10% of 324 W/m^2, or 32.4 W/m^2…so 16,270 divided by 32.4 gives roughly 502 times the contribution @ 96% CO2.

So…0.39/96 to 32.4/16,270 = 0.004 times the concentration gives 0.0019 times the back radiation.

At this point it could mean T^2 = volume of CO2 or 2*T = volume…we don’t know because we probably don’t have enough data.

The pressure at the surface probably has a lot to do with the strength of the Venusian atmosphere’s heating capacity.

For more information on Venus, see this data sheet available from NASA.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 12/05/2010 08:42

Thanks for that Nazdeck, but as you can imagine there are still things about the calculations that bother me. How can it be said how much is absorbed or reflected on Earth or Venus, it sounds like that alone would have to be only a rough estimation and not an accurate figure. Then there is the calculation for the surface temperature itself which is only taking into account the greenhouse gases and not the surface pressure as you point out at the end. That is what also bothers me about the calculation for Earth that the surface pressure is not taken into account just greenhouse gases. Interesting fact that the pressure at the surface of Venus is like 1km under the ocean, however of course the temperature there is not high because we are in a dark liquid at the point. Gases are something else and mix well as you point out and so do have high temperatures in high pressures. Anyway I am still thinking this through.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 12/05/2010 10:42

Yes, it is probably a rough estimate given how much we understand about the Earth compared to Venus.

I also did a bit of modelling of the 0.004:0.0019 ratios for the Earth’s atmosphere last night, out of curiosity. It’s enough to say I was a little surprised by the results (even though they were pretty rough).

The change in mean surface air temperature (on Earth) with increasing CO2 concentration (taking into account a rough increase in water vapour due to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation) is about logarithmic in nature, with two inflexion points. The trend line fitted has R^2 ~ 0.95, with Y = 11.916*Ln(x) - 113.16, where x = CO2 in ppm and Y*15 = T = mean surface air temperature. At 3900 ppm (10 times the current CO2 levels) T ~ 28 degrees C and I’m guessing very humid.

This, of course, does not take into account pressure. I think one of the big questions is what causes the surface pressures on Venus to be so high?

There is something that’s a little strange about the surface of Venus though…it’s density is about 0.65 Kg/m3 @ 92 bars, compared to 1.22 Kg/m3 @ 1 bar for Earth.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 12/05/2010 16:57

Nazdeck to me that result or the 2 ratios seems to suggest that perhaps the science or logic is not right about the logarithmic change in temperature with the change in CO2. I do have trouble accepting the science behind that reasoning given that it does not seem to work the same way for Venus. Are you sure about those density figures?. That does seem strange that a gas 92x more compressed than on Earth would be lighter?. Is it not perhaps meant to be a comparison at the same pressure?
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 12/05/2010 18:06

Originally Posted By: snowmi
Nazdeck to me that result or the 2 ratios seems to suggest that perhaps the science or logic is not right about the logarithmic change in temperature with the change in CO2. I do have trouble accepting the science behind that reasoning given that it does not seem to work the same way for Venus. Are you sure about those density figures?. That does seem strange that a gas 92x more compressed than on Earth would be lighter?. Is it not perhaps meant to be a comparison at the same pressure?

Actually, yes, there is an error in my calculations (or what I presume is an error), by a factor of 100. It should be 0.65 kg/m3 @ 92.5 bars and 1.244 kg/m3 @ 101.8 bars. So it should make much more sense now.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 12/05/2010 18:36

Venus Envy Posted on May 8, 2010 By Steve Goddard


"ESA’s Venus Express mission has been studying the planet and a basic atmospheric model is emerging.


Venus has long been the CO2 bogeyman of climate science. In my last piece about Venus I laid out arguments against the claim that it is a runaway greenhouse which makes Venus hot. This generated a lot of discussion. I’m not going to review that discussion, but instead will pose a few ideas which should make the concepts clear to almost everybody.

If there were no Sun (or other external energy source) atmospheric temperature would approach absolute zero. As a result there would be almost no atmospheric pressure on any planet -> PV = nRT.

Because we have a sun providing energy to the periphery of the atmospheric system, the atmosphere circulates vertically and horizontally to maintain equilibrium. Falling air moves to regions of higher pressure, compresses and warms. The greater the pressure, the greater the warming. Rising air moves to regions of lower pressure, expands, and cools. The amount of warming (or cooling) per unit distance is described as the “lapse rate.” On Earth the dry lapse rate is 9.760 K/km. On Venus, the dry lapse rate is similar at 10.468 K/km. This means that with each km of elevation you gain on either Earth or Venus, the temperature drops by about 10C.

It is very important to note that despite radically different compositions, both atmospheres have approximately the same dry lapse rate. This tells us that the primary factor affecting the temperature is the thickness of the atmosphere, not the composition. Because Venus has a much thicker atmosphere than Earth, the temperature is much higher.

dT = -10 * dh where T is temperature and h is height.

With a constant lapse rate, an atmosphere twice as thick would be twice as warm. Three times as thick would be three times as warm. etc. Now let’s do some experiments using this information.

Experiment # 1 – Atmospheric pressure on Venus’ surface is 92 times larger than earth, because the atmosphere is much thicker and thus weighs more. Now suppose that we could instantly change the molecular composition of Venus atmosphere to match that of Earth. Because the lapse rate of Earth’s atmosphere is very similar to that of Venus, we would see little change in Venus temperature.

Experiment #2 – Now, lets keep the atmospheric composition of Venus constant, but instead remove almost 91/92 of it – to make the mass and thickness of Venus atmosphere similar to earth. Because lapse rates are similar between the two planets, temperatures would become similar to those on earth.

Experiment #3 – Let’s take Earth’s atmosphere and replace the composition with that of Venus. Because the lapse rates are similar, the temperature on Earth would not change very much.

Experiment #4 – Let’s keep the composition of Earth’s atmosphere fixed, but increase the amount of gas in the atmosphere by 92X. Because the lapse rates are similar, the temperature on Earth would become very hot, like Venus.

ETC ETC READ ON AT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/#more-19311
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 12/05/2010 19:10

Dr Willie Soon is hated by the AGW crowd as he tells it exactly the way he sees it and the picture that Dr Soon paints of the AGW crowd is not pretty!

From the "Seminole County Environmental News Examiner"

Harvard astrophysicist dismisses AGW theory, challenges peers to 'take back climate science'
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 12/05/2010 23:08

I think there is only one solution someone needs to do an experiment on a real planet to be able to put this argument to rest. Obviously we are unable to calculate the result, amazing just how little we really understand. The moon would be the obvious target but even that could be quite difficult to achieve. You would have to try different atmospheres on the moon by putting them there for one year at a time. Another thing that could be tested is to put a small glass sphere into space filled with a gas of 1 atmosphere, then try a number of different balls with various gases all with a temperature sensor in the middle. However you would have to calibrate the balls to keep constant pressure in them. That would still be missing the lapse rate because the experiment is too small and the glass would still be a barrier to the sun but given equal conditions it could still mean something.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/05/2010 15:00

Originally Posted By: Nazdeck
Originally Posted By: snowmi
Nazdeck to me that result or the 2 ratios seems to suggest that perhaps the science or logic is not right about the logarithmic change in temperature with the change in CO2. I do have trouble accepting the science behind that reasoning given that it does not seem to work the same way for Venus. Are you sure about those density figures?. That does seem strange that a gas 92x more compressed than on Earth would be lighter?. Is it not perhaps meant to be a comparison at the same pressure?

Actually, yes, there is an error in my calculations (or what I presume is an error), by a factor of 100. It should be 0.65 kg/m3 @ 92.5 bars and 1.244 kg/m3 @ 101.8 bars. So it should make much more sense now.

Oops…65.5 kg/m3 @ 92.5 bars and 1.244 kg/m3 @ 1 bar.

Perhaps it is just me, but judging from the Venus Data Sheet, the oblateness of Venus is said to be zero, which implies that the pressure is uniform over the whole planet.

Also:

Posted 10-02-2007 06:12 PM by JontyH, “GLOBAL WARMING A COVER UP?”:

“…it is not the earth's (or Venus's) surface that is in thermal equilibrium with the incoming solar radiation - rather it is the "top of the atmosphere" that is in thermal equilibrium.

…extra energy source is not external - it is downward directed longwave radiation from the atmosphere. The extra energy is stored in the atmosphere (as internal molecular energy - temperature. The atmosphere does not absorb energy from shortwave radiation from the sun, so if it did not absorb the longwave radiation from the surface, it would be very much colder that it is, from radiative transfer alone) - this is how the greenhouse effect works in its purely radiative form, that is, ignoring convective and latent heat heat transfer in the atmosphere (these make it a bit more complicated, but can be incorporated into the theory). The laws of black body heat transfer are not violated, but the balance occurs at the top of the atmosphere (or to be precise, the level at which the atmosphere becomes transparent to space), not at the surface. In fact, if you think about it, its hardly surprising that this balance does not occur at the surface, given that the surface is effectively decoupled from space (i.e. the exterior of the system) by the almost total absorption of the emitted longwave radiation from the surface by the atmosphere.

The greenhouse effect is hardly an unverified hypothesis - in fact, it seems to stand on similar ground to the very radiation laws we are discussing, as a theory that has been well verified through observations.”
Posted by: tom2222

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/05/2010 16:14

Originally Posted By: marakai
Originally Posted By: ShultzCity
No, months ago.


It actually started after the 98 El Nino.


LOL
is that your best sceptical argument??
thats straight out the sceptic 101 handbook isnt it?

the trend is still UP UP AND AWAY (obviously 1998 was a strong el nino event )

lets move on to the next myth please
Posted by: Shultzy

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/05/2010 18:11

Can you get us a graph for that Tom?
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/05/2010 22:40

The local large Ag research Institute [ about 200 ag researchers and staff ] here in Horsham run monthly seminars for their researchers to catch up with different aspects of Ag research and for cross fertilization of ideas and to expose new guys and gals, lots of gals in Ag research nowadays and a good thing, to a bunch of critics so they learn to handle exposure when it gets tough going in explaining and promoting their research.
I am the only farmer who attends these short 40 minute to one hour sessions and there is a standing invitation extended to myself.
It makes life interesting for a lot of researchers and listeners to cop awkward questions based on real life experiences from a grumpy, crusty old so and so retired farmer so I am told.
And the debates often get pretty interesting and passionate as a result at times.

Today, the lecture involved climate change and insects and the modeled interactions that will arise from crop / insect pests / climate change and warming.
But something emerged from that short seminar as so often happens that I found very interesting indeed.
A researcher friend of mine is heavily involved in a project that involves climate change and the effects on agriculture.
And he is a realist whose crew working on this have found some quite good modeled [ don't forget that "modeled" bit in any of these claims ] benefits to agriculture from any possible climate warming but the benefits were on a regional basis, not overall.
In fact the local Minister of Ag is reported as saying that was the first report he had of any benefit to warming and he apparently sounded as though he was a bit cheesed off at the doom and gloom surrounding this whole myth.

Gary's small group are near the top of the pile in Australia in research on climate change and the effects on agriculture.
He uses the CSIRO models [ I think one CSIRO model is used by the IPCC as well ] as the base models which they use to underly their own Agriculture modeling on.
It is very much a modeling learning curve which unlike climate modeling, the actual real in field effects are used to verify the Ag model's output.
And as confidence and experience in the modeling is gained, that then makes it much easier and much, much quicker to make changes in plant breeding and genetics and farming systems to meet the changes as they happen which can all be based on modeled outcomes.
And that is already happening right around the world of Agriculture with a huge and ongoing constant interchange of Ag research personnel across and from every corner of the planet.

Gary has now used the most recent versions of the CSIRO climate models and has found that when checking the output of the three or so CSIRO climate models before going onto using them as the base for their Ag models that the CSIRO models, even of the supposed same or slightly different versions are providing quite different and at times, quite contrary and opposite climate outcomes for the same regions and areas.
He made some queries as to why the different results but got no answer.
So he downloaded one of the supposedly exactly the same versions of the CSIRO climate modeling programs and it gave completely different results to predicted regional climate outcomes from supposedly the same version that he previously had.

He has asked the CSIRO for an explanation on what the hell is going on with their models and has got no reply.

It seems that the CSIRO are playing with their climate models and minute changes to the inputs or in the coding are throwing up completely different outcomes for exactly the same regions and areas.
And this is precisely what is expected from chaos theory which is the underlying limitation to the accuracy of the predictions of any models.
Once a certain number of iterations or runs of data have been processed, the most minute change in the initial inputs or even just tiny, unnoticeable glitches in the computer processors will lead to a rapidly increasing divergence between runs of the same program.
Of course the accuracy of the predictions for the future climate can't be verified at all until we arrive at that time in the future that any climate changes are supposed to have occurred.
Backcasting for model tuning is NOT the same as predicting climate into the future.

This shows up in weather forecasting where the accuracy starts to diverge after about 5 days and the limit of reasonable accuracy for weather models is about 7 days to an outside 10 days.

So for a change, some outside opinions on the CSIRO's climate models, the modeler's skills and model prediction accuracy and they don't particularly measure up very well at all if what I have learn't is correct.

Also watch for change in the way in which the CSIRO will change the way in which it publicises it's findings on climate change.
Not sure of the way in which this is supposed to be meant or at this stage just how they will do this but the older method of specific statements has apparently caused them a lot of angst when a few years on the previously modeled future climate has simply failed to appear as advertised.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 17/05/2010 08:47

Watts Up with the Climate? Australian Tour

Anthony Watts, David Archibald and David Stockwell are touring Australia 12 June – 1 July 2010.

Details will be updated here as they are finalised. Please check back or contact us for updated information.

If you find any errors on this page, please contact the webmaster, John Costella, directly.

http://climatesceptics.com.au/watts.html
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 23/05/2010 12:05

Originally Posted By: ROM
It seems that the CSIRO are playing with their climate models and minute changes to the inputs or in the coding are throwing up completely different outcomes for exactly the same regions and areas.
And this is precisely what is expected from chaos theory which is the underlying limitation to the accuracy of the predictions of any models.
Once a certain number of iterations or runs of data have been processed, the most minute change in the initial inputs or even just tiny, unnoticeable glitches in the computer processors will lead to a rapidly increasing divergence between runs of the same program.

If the input data or program vary even slightly, that is the sort of outcome I would expect. Sensitive dependence on initial conditions is a central point in Chaos Theory. A small amount of difference in a measurement may be considered experimental noise, background noise or an inaccuracy of the equipment in a standard experiment. Trying to get experimental results accurate to the nearest millionth of a degree, volume or distance under standard experimental conditions is fairly unrealistic. However, as many aspects of probability theory are statistically contradicted by what happens in nature [because an absence of interconnectivity is assumed between physical processes], I would consider it reasonable to expect a deterministic approximation to give a good idea of what’s going on in the real world.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 23/05/2010 18:08

Here's an interesting take on CO2 and global warming from Joe Bastardi who is a meteorologist and runs the AccuWeather company.

Food for Thought from Joe Bastardi

You will have to scroll down some way to find this article but here is a quote ;

And to remove any doubt, warming ocean waters release CO2
Cooling ocean waters absorb CO2
And that is the opposite to what a lot of people may actually believe and the opposite to most of the experiences we have had through life with warm / cold liquids and the way we think they absorb and release gases and absorb and precipitate solids.
Quote:
SOME PRETTY COMPELLING EVIDENCE ON WHAT IS DRIVING CO2

The table below shows c02 increases on Mt Loa since 1959. One can notice the spiking of co2 when el ninos occur, and how the co2 increases were higher when the PDO went warm. This further supports my idea that we are going to get our answer as to what is causing the warming. Cycles of c02 and the evidence that the co2 RESPONDS to warming not causes is pretty straightforward with co-ordinating the data. The real kick in the teeth of co2 being the driver is the big fall with the Pinitubo cooling!
Posted by: dave7

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 24/05/2010 01:57

some info on Iceland = { The only thing murkier than the plume of ash spewing from Iceland's Eyjafjallajökull volcano may be its long-term implications to the planet, its climate and public health.
The eruption, which began Wednesday, already is causing massive dislocation across Europe. By late Sunday, more than 63,000 flights had been canceled in 23 European countries, stifling the lifeblood of the continent's economy. Because few planes are flying, travelers can't travel, machinery parts can't get to factories, food sellers can't transport their goods, and businesses are finding business increasingly difficult to conduct.

The economic ripples are being felt worldwide. In the USA, air carriers canceled 310 flights to and from Europe on Sunday, according to the Air Transport Association, which represents most major U.S. airlines. Because of the volcano, Kenya's hothouse flowers — responsible for 20% of that African nation's exports — are rotting in warehouses rather than winging their way to Europe.

MAP: Ash cloud disrupts air traffic
PHOTOS: Eyjafjallajokull's effect on travelers
How long will the chaos continue? It's unclear, despite weather forecasts indicating that prevailing winds today could break up some of the massive ash cloud over Europe.

TRAVEL: European airlines flying reduced schedule Monday
SCIENCE FAIR: Plume visible from space
Geologists in Iceland said Sunday that the volcano is continuing to erupt with about the same force it had Wednesday. The last time Eyjafjallajökull (pronounced ay-yah-FYAH-plah-yer-kuh-duhl, according to the Associated Press) began spewing ash and lava, in 1821, it went on until 1823.

In one significant episode in Iceland, the Laki volcano erupted in 1783, sending massive amounts of lava, ash and poisonous gases into the air for eight months. Much larger than Eyjafjallajökull's eruption, the Laki blast killed half of Iceland's livestock and triggered a famine that, along with fluorine poisoning, killed one-quarter of Iceland's population.

The ash and gases released caused extreme weather across Europe and contributed to a continent-wide rise in deaths from respiratory diseases. If this eruption lasts anywhere near that long, scientists say, there is a risk it could melt glaciers that now cap the nearby Katla volcano, allowing it to blow its top and potentially pump enough ash into the atmosphere to lower temperatures worldwide.

The good news is that despite the difficulties caused for air traffic and commerce, volcanologists at this point don't seem overly worried about the chances that the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull will have long-term repercussions for climate or health.

Here's what scientists know:

The best-case scenario

The volcano is producing eruptive pulses that are sending ash and gases up to about 25,000 feet. The prevailing winds are westerly, so the ash cloud is being pushed east toward Scandinavia and down toward the United Kingdom.

That's typical for volcanoes in Iceland, says volcanologist Michael Bursik of the University of Buffalo. Eruptions "happen all the time, and usually the planes just divert around them," he says.

Volcanologists have worked with airlines for more than a decade to handle eruption diversions, since incidents in 1982 and 1989 in Indonesia and Alaska, respectively, in which jets flying through ash clouds had their engines shut down. In both cases, the engines restarted when the jets got out of the ash clouds.

"It's a serious business," Bursik says. "You don't want that to happen."

Geologically, Iceland springs from a spreading ocean ridge in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. The ash from the volcano is recycled ocean floor and grit from deeper down in the Earth's mantle.

The best-case scenario is that Eyjafjallajökull starts to peter out in the next few days and quietly goes back to sleep.

Barring that, the volcano might "go on at a fairly low level for a whole year. With phases of higher activity, it could shut down in a few days," says Simon Carn, a volcanologist at Michigan Technological University in Houghton, Mich.

That might allow air traffic to start up again, at least during the lulls.

Working around the problem

Alaska has learned to live with such volcanoes and work its air traffic around them, says Peter Webley, a professor at the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks. "We'll have an explosive event, then lava on the ground, then another explosion."

But even when the lulls occur, there will be several days of anxious monitoring by the International Civil Aviation Organization's Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers, created in the aftermath of the two air mishaps in the 1980s. As the ash cloud gets more dispersed, it becomes harder to track, says Webley, who is trapped in Paignton, England, and unable to get home. Using ground- and plane-based air monitors and satellite data, the centers watch the increasingly invisible cloud of ash, adjusting airspace corridors to ensure that no planes fly through it.

"It's dependent on wind direction and wind speed," says Webley, one of several scientists who help make similar decisions in Alaska, which has had four major volcanic events in the past two years.

Typically, volcanic ash disperses within 48 hours after an eruption. But the air cordon for planes has to be set 12 to 24 hours in advance to ensure long-haul flights have sufficient time and fuel to get where they need to go. "If I'm flying from Seattle to Europe, I need to know what's going to be happening eight hours later, when I'm over Greenland. I might have to add an hour onto the flight and another hour of fuel," Webley says.

What's unlikely from the Eyjafjallajökull eruption is any major climate effect, says climate scientist Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. "Right now, the magnitude and explosiveness of the Icelandic eruption is not enough to have significant climate effects."

Eyjafjallajökull's ash doesn't contain much sulfur, which can generate sulfuric acid droplets that could linger in the upper atmosphere and have a cooling effect, Ammann says. Its explosive bursts lack the pop to carry much ash above 30,000 feet, where it would need to reside in the atmosphere for years to have a significant cooling effect. If the droplets don't get that high, they can't reflect the sun's warmth away from Earth.

"Unless the eruption changes, the climate effects don't look significant," Ammann says.

In 1991, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, the second-largest eruption of the 20th century (much larger than Eyjafjallajökull), sent a sulfuric acid haze into the stratosphere, reducing global average temperatures about 0.9 degree Fahrenheit over the next year.

The flow of ash

If the eruption continues, meteorologists will closely monitor the prevailing winds blowing toward Scandinavia and Europe, Webley says. If the winds were to turn, the ash cloud could be pushed west toward the south of Greenland.

While unlikely, that would have the effect of cutting off the shortest air route from North America to Europe, as most jets fly over southern Greenland, then south of Iceland, he says.

The good news is that even if the eruptions last for months, Icelandic eruptions generally don't affect the rest of the world, says Stefan Wastegård, a professor of geology at Stockholm University who studies ancient ash deposits from Iceland. The ash typically doesn't get too far, mostly only to Iceland, Greenland and sometimes Scandinavia.

Long term, the health effects of the eruption shouldn't be too bad if it stays at current levels, says Bernadette Longo, a nursing professor at the University of Nevada-Reno, who researches the health effects of volcanic pollution.

That's because volcanoes tend to either have explosive or effusive activity, Longo says. Explosive volcanoes such as Eyjafjallajökull eject their gases and particulates high up into the stratosphere. Effusive volcanoes, such as Hawaii's Kilauea, are more at the troposphere, the lowest level of the Earth's atmosphere, putting out gases and ash where people are living and breathing.

Unless the levels of material Eyjafjallajökull is sending up increase massively, it most likely will get dispersed in the stratosphere, high above Earth.

The worst-case scenario

The worst-case scenario is that the Eyjafjallajökull eruption intensifies, causing the nearby Katla volcano to erupt.

"When Katla went off in the 1700s, the USA suffered a very cold winter," says Gary Hufford, a scientist with the Alaska Region of the National Weather Service. "The Mississippi River froze just north of New Orleans, and the East Coast, especially New England, had an extremely cold winter. Depending on a new eruption, Katla could cause some serious weather changes."

Scientists say history has shown that whenever Eyjafjallajökull erupts, Katla follows. The only question is when.

"If it (Eyjafjallajökull) continues to belch, then you worry," Hufford says.

There's precedent for massive eruptions. From 1783 to 1784, the Laki fissure and nearby Grímsvötn volcano poured out what's been estimated at 3.4 cubic miles of lava and poisonous gases.

No one's going to starve on Iceland: International shipping will keep the nation's 317,000 residents fed. But it could be a long, ugly experience, both on the island and in Europe, says Reno's Longo.

If the eruption ramps up significantly, it could affect health in a much larger area. Very large eruptions can cause a dry, sulfurous fog such as Europe experienced in 1793 with the eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland. "That would be the worst-case scenario, but the potential exists," Longo says.

If Eyjafjallajökull were to create high levels of particulate and gas pollution in either Iceland or elsewhere, measures would have to be taken to protect the population from exposure. "You can't turn off the volcano," Longo says.

Her studies of those living near Hawaii's Kilauea volcano, which has been erupting since 1983, show that nearby residents often are significantly affected, with symptoms such as sore throat, chronic cough, asthma and eye irritation. Research on pollutants' penetration rates into homes, schools and hospitals found that a significant amount of particulate matter got inside. But air conditioners and air filters got rid of most of it.

Breathing in the ash is harmful to the lungs and airways. Composed of tiny shards of molten rock that's cooled to a glassy material, at a microscopic level it has sharp, jagged edges.

"If you breathe it in," Longo says, "it's very difficult to get out."} ......& the latest update = {Sunday 23rd May 2010
Katla volcano, Iceland
In the past 48 hours 3 earthquakes occurred at Katla volcano, Iceland. The earthquakes may be due to ice movements within Mýrdalsjökull glacier or magma movement under the volcano. Scientists have been keeping a close watch on Katla volcano, due to the possibility of an eruption triggered by the activity at nearby Eyjafjallajokull. An eruption of Katla volcano has the potential to be more devastating than the current eruption of Eyjafjallajokull.}
Posted by: dave7

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 24/05/2010 02:25

Laki Volcano History
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 25/05/2010 20:25

The following on Climate Change science is from Bert Rutan.
Bert Rutan is a legendary American aerospace engineer who has pioneered many advanced developments in aerospace technology.
One of his company's "Scaled Composites" current projects is developing a reusable low cost space vehicle launcher.
He is also developing secret aerospace technology projects for the American airforce.

Bert Rutan comes at the AGW hypothesis from an engineer's viewpoint where there are serious consequences if your engineering is in any way suspect and at fault.

Bert Rutan's biography

An Engineer‟s Critique of Global Warming "Science‟ by Bert Rutan

A very well illustrated and graphical presentation of Rutan's views on the AGW hypothesis.
Posted by: dave7

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 26/05/2010 21:44

just felt an earthquake roll through here...checked & sure enough a 2.9 hit Bendigo at 8.09pm tonight...i'm 60 kms away...felt it rubble the house & tickle my feet... Geoscience Australia ...a first for me to experience one here in over 20 years...experienced stronger one in New Guinea once....things could be hotting up from within..
Posted by: dave7

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 26/05/2010 22:04

here's a good read = George White ...(that was my Grandfathers name:)
Posted by: dave7

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/05/2010 01:23

fantastic read ROM....i wouldnt be surprised if Volcanism was the Ice Age trigger....
Posted by: adon

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/05/2010 13:41

Originally Posted By: ROM
The following on Climate Change science is from Bert Rutan.
Bert Rutan is a legendary American aerospace engineer who has pioneered many advanced developments in aerospace technology.
One of his company's "Scaled Composites" current projects is developing a reusable low cost space vehicle launcher.
He is also developing secret aerospace technology projects for the American airforce.

Bert Rutan comes at the AGW hypothesis from an engineer's viewpoint where there are serious consequences if your engineering is in any way suspect and at fault.

Bert Rutan's biography

An Engineer‟s Critique of Global Warming "Science‟ by Bert Rutan

A very well illustrated and graphical presentation of Rutan's views on the AGW hypothesis.


ROM thanks for putting that up. This bloke shares similar line to me. I would love to build a house that uses bugger all energy and use a car that does the same. Not because of the planet but because it makes sence. His house is a lot like a house I have been planning in my head for ages if I ever get the chance to do it. I would have no problems aiming for zero evergy use in my everyday life so that I and my house is more independant from the modern "needs". We all know how annoying it is to loose power on a bloody hot day or after a storm. It would be great to have a backup for that and still be comfortable. Themal mass housing would cut energy consumption so much that we would cut a massive chunk off the required power generation we need. The houses look strange but that is mearly because we are used to the types of houses we see.
Posted by: dave7

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/05/2010 19:00

u stillin Birchip Adon? smile....a good dream to have...was mine too back in the early 80's...came true...never had a power bill since...but back then had council try to stop me. (failed)...now its easy to get cheap solarpanels/subsidy etc...maintaince free AGM Deepcycle Batteries are the go right now...goodluck
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/05/2010 21:10

Originally Posted By: ROM

This link doesn't work for me with Adobe Reader 7. I get an erro message.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/05/2010 21:20

Nazdek, works in Safari but try Bert Rutan's site here.

http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

You can download a PPt presentation of the same material from the above site plus some other info if you want to do it differently or have the download speed.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/05/2010 22:03


The last article on Bert Rutan's site is from Alan Carlin and is very interesting.
Alan Carlin was quiet American EPA behind the scenes analyst.
When the American EPA declared CO2 a dangerous substance which had to be under the control of the EPA, which gives you some idea of the fanaticism and just plain old ignorance and the lusts for ultimate power involved here, Alan Carlin did a study and analysis in only a very short time frame which effectively destroyed the whole of the EPA's argument on the dangers of CO2.
He got absolutely run over from a very great height in the American administration for daring to question the basis on which the CO2 endangerment finding was enacted even though it was his job to do such an analysis.
So he quietly released his study to a couple of people and all hell broke loose.

The EPA has never quite recovered from that debacle but are still trying to bypass Congress and the Senate and get their CO2 endangerment declaration under way.
As of a couple of days ago, it looks like Congress may be moving to thoroughly clip the EPA's wings which is directly under the Obama's administration control and not Congress.

If the EPA gets its way the entire American economy comes under it's jurisdiction as it will have given itself the rights to control CO2 releases down to the individual very small business and everybody's energy usage and will have the right of entry anywhere it's inspectors decide to intrude.
So the Yanks are up in arms big time but so far this has not got out of Washington and most people are trying to keep it there and will and are trying to now find ways to destroy the EPA and they might just succeed in the next few years.

In any case the EPA is likely to tied up in the courts for years if it tries to enforce it's ruling and strangely that might be by the enviros as they believe that the EPA is not being thuggish enough in it's demands on the energy sector and everything else that moves in the USA to "decarbonise" their operations.

"Decarbonise", another warmista, eco political, stupid and screwed up invention of a word that only the thoroughly ignorant or the fanatical could ever really believe in as the element "carbon" is the fundamental element that is the basis of ALL life on this planet.

And I do like Rutan's description of the "opportunistic eco political activists" to describe quite accurately those who lust after total control through the medium of the environmental organisations.
Not much to do with the environment but an awful lot to do with the opportunistic grabbing and holding onto power but cleverly avoiding the consequences of having been seen to make any decisions that destroy people's livelihood and lives.
Get the politicos to do that dirty work and ensure they carry the blame for it.
Posted by: dave7

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/05/2010 00:20

its interesting...both sides of this (mass)debate both believe the other is out to destroy the planet...inspite of Rutans over whelming 'proof', his critique still has that 'scare' factor...i.e. polies are going to make it worse & cost lives...its pretty obvious the truth is far more complex than the AGW debarkle...monsanto's(monsatan) chemicals, massive oil spills, smog & other pollutions & deforestations not mentioned here...u only have to look at pics of china's 'air' to get an idea of of the crap that is being pumped out into 'our' lungs...(biosphere)...heavy metals...the Tullamarine toxic waste dump cancers...industral workplace health risks/fumes, stuffed land from mining, water quality...hell even agent orange & the depleted urainium disarster in the Middle East etc. etc... & what do we hear...absolute crap about co2...what a bloody disgrace.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/05/2010 11:08

Quote:
.both sides of this (mass)debate both believe the other is out to destroy the planet


Not quite Dave.
Probably 95 % of those who are quite strong believers and supporters of the environmental movement simply want a cleaner, better world to live in.
Probably 95 % of those who dislike and / or absolutely detest the "environmental" and "green" organisations simply want a cleaner and better world to live in.
And that is something you also have asked for in your post, Dave, and which nearly everybody wants and as so many of even the so called skeptics of and non supporters of the enviro organisations have repeatedly stated they also want.

This attitude towards the environment is frequently stated in every post and article that I have come across regardless of the commenter's personal affiliations with or their feelings towards or against the so called green and environmental organisations.

And it is sad reflection on our society that everybody has to now, for no other reason than political correctness, state constantly, repetitively and boringly, their support for the "environment" and to constantly and again boringly justify their attitudes towards the "environment".
This is how deeply ingrained into our society this whole "green environmental" cause and creation has become through the the constant, repetitive and shrill cries of alarmism about the "Environment".
It has also become a totally unnecessary and deeply divisive issue within our society, again due entirely to the environmental activist created alarmism.

I would also point out that the word "Environment" means the "physical surroundings and conditions" but this has now been expanded to cover almost anything that does not somehow fit how something should look or behave in a person's view.
And "Environment" as a word has become synonymous with hyped up alarmist propaganda and can no longer be separated from that type of alarmism.

The word "Environment" through the alarmist activities of the green and environmental organisations has unfortunately taken on a whole new and very divisive political, shadowy and alarmist associated meanings over the last couple of decades.


I have been fortunate to know a few genuine,committed and real environmentalists.
The ones I have known are usually country residing people with a real appreciation for nature in all it's glory, it's incredible diversity and interactions and in all it's nastiness and they have a pragmatic approach to what is possible and what can be achieved with nature without compromising too much the life style we would all like to have and live.
The real trouble makers in the green environmental movement are those who nearly all live within the city limits and are almost totally divorced from the harsh realities of nature but have this glorified vision of nature which they believe that mankind, other than themselves, is in the process of destroying.
So they demand unattainable sacrifices to be made, again by everybody but themselves, to supposedly " save" the planet.
And it is in this latter group that you will find the Gaia / Earth worshipping cult type groups.
And at the top of this green environmental heap you will find Rutan's "oppurtunistic, eco political activists" who have little in the way or ethics or morality particularly when it comes to somebody or some human lives getting in the way of their own political power seeking goals.


Unlike the environmental organisations, there is no structured or organised "anti" environment organisations.
There are a small percentage of people who could not give a damn about the "environment" and I have seen the work in a minor fashion of their endeavours with rubbish and etc on the side of remote country roads and etc.
Some of this anti- environment attitude is the direct result of the environmental organisations trying to ram their demands right down the throats of others who are far less willing to be stood over by oft times thuggish environmental activists and the organisations they supposedly represent.

Amongst those who are completely skeptical of the alarmist claims of the eco political organisations are a great many who are now completely skeptical of and do not believe in the slightest anymore the so many alarmist disaster oriented claims of the environmental organisations, claims that nearly always originate in that eco political hierarchy of the environmental organisations and claims that repeatedly and ferociously attack some segment of our society for not falling into line with the demands of this particular environmental organisation's leadership.

In simple terms most of the so called "anti" environment persons or environmental skeptics are simply fed up to the back teeth with the hype and constant alarmism and constant and over the top strident excessive demands of the green environmental movement that demands that people conform to their most outlandish demands.
And most of those environmental skeptics are just plain fed up to the back teeth with the constant and pathological lying and gross exaggeration of the major environmental organisations about nearly everything that has anything to do with the environment, a characteristic which now seems to be the distinguishing hall mark of all the major green environmental organisations.
They are fed up with the constant preaching about changing our lifestyles and accepting much reduced living standards and life styles for the sake of the "Environment" whilst all the time continuing on in their own lavish resource consuming life style.
That is called quite plainly "hypocrisy" and an increasing number are just plain fed up with it!

It's called a "backlash"!
And it is gaining momentum world wide against the major "Environmental" and "Green" organisations.

They have sown the whirlwind and now they will reap the harvest.
Posted by: dave7

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/05/2010 12:01

yep i think your right about green politics Rom....this really is a disgrace as i said...the blind leading the blind...strange how most want the same thing but cant agree on it...feel bullied. (both sides)...still the power of $ must surely influence the major polluters 'morals' to any green earth loving tendencies they may or maynot have...i wonder if this backlash will include even more pollution as the green Hypocracy is exposed....it reminds me about the future sci-fi scenaro of the Earth People & the Machine People...i guess it really comes down to Humans just not getting along with eachother...both believe in what their doing....otherwise they wouldnt be doing it...both sides believe they're good people & are being imposed on by the other....both enjoy their favourite pastimes...i went down to east Gippsland to interview both sides of the old growth forest debarkle....again it was the Earth People v the Machine People....the Greenie activists & the Logger workers....both believed they were doing the right thing...both made very good points...however your right, the anger & HATE was from the workers...who claimed their livihood depended on that forest & they werent about to stuff it up, that they considered themselves more green than the greenies....the activists on the otherhand saw old growth bio-diversity being destroyed never to be seen again in this lifetime...that they were trying to save what little was still left...this scenario repeats itself in the Amazon with the native indians up against multi nationals...same as Bornio & palm oil....one side trying to save whats left & the other chasing $....i see both sides....be interesting to see what happens....i think the Earth will be fine...but humans may not be so fortunate...history has shown they just cant get along.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 30/05/2010 19:38

Mining for Cold, Hard Facts

WEST ANTARCTICA—At a camp here on Earth's remotest continent, American researchers have constructed a towering drill that, like a biopsy needle, periodically plunges thousands of feet into the ice to extract an exotic marrow of frozen gases and isotopes.

See more photos and video from Antarctica, plus track the ice core's path from Antarctica to the Colorado lab.

Their work could settle a central question in the dispute over climate change, by documenting how greenhouse gases influenced temperatures in the past. Only then can researchers accurately analyze climate changes that may be under way today.

Until now, that information was hidden in Antarctica's ancient ice.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704655004575114010457906340.html?mod=wsj_india_main
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 31/05/2010 11:15

The kooks have really taken over AGW climate science!

Engineering a cooler Earth

Spraying sulphur dioxide [ SO2 ] into the upper levels of the atmosphere to cool the Earth a couple of degrees which could well take the planet's temperatures to well below the extremely cold Maunder Minimum temperatures and all that implies for global food production let alone all the other factors.
And this soon after billions of dollars, pounds and euros have been spent in installing SO2 scrubbers on power stations world wide to stop SO2 caused acid rain.

And this only one of a number of similar type proposals from this bunch of self important global cooling whackos.

These guys can't even get the forecast of global temperatures a couple of years ahead right nor predict the major climate affecting ENSO events let alone predict what this sort of stupidity would do to the actual global temps or even if it would work at all after spending a few hundred billion dollars of the unfortunate tax payer's money.
Much, much worse is the possibility that it might work, a limited chance I know as nature always does things it's own way despite mankind's intentions, but if their proposals did actually work or have an effect there is a very good chance of it going totally wrong or of the end results being no longer controllable or becoming a runaway reaction and making such a catastrophic FU that a lot of life on this planet could suffer some pretty horrendous consequences.
These climate engineering kooks are utterly incapable along with everybody else, of ever understanding the full effects and ramifications of what may happen if the geo engineering they are proposing is ever put into action.

The same taxpayers who despite being expected to foot the entire mega billion dollar bill for these nut cases would not be allowed to have any say about the project as it would impinge on their Academic Freedoms to doubt and question and limit the activities of these scientiific whackos

Or maybe the whole exercise is merely another way of ensuring that the extremely generous tax payer funded AGW gravy train keeps right on delivering it's extravagant largesse to these kooks that go under the name of scientists and no questions or limitations will be accepted as such questions and limitations would infringe on the academic freedom to explore science.
Just send more money!

Fortunately for us, a minor example of attempted geo engineering was the german attempt to spread iron oxide particles over a few tens of square kilometres in the south Pacific / Great Southern Ocean that went spectacularly wrong side up.
The world's ocean waters are deficient in iron and this essential element to life severely limits the growth and proliferation of algal and other diverse ocean dwelling organisms that use and need iron to be able to use the essential to life CO2 in their metabolic processes and so absorb large quantities of CO2 and possibly tie it up so it eventually falls to the sea floor with the dead detritus from the algal mass and the CO2 based compounds in the detritus is then permanently fixed in place.
Or so the theory goes but with many serious doubts and lack of understanding as to the real effects and / or the actual processes involved.

The iron oxide experiment was just another crazy proposal to stop global warming and cool the globe and it was intended to dramatically increase the mass of ocean algae in the seeded patch and in doing so the plant like algae would soak up large amounts of CO2 or so it was expected.
And if the Southern Ocean experiment was successful the proposal was this iron oxide spreading would be extended to cover all of the world's oceans at some mega billions of dollars cost but " the situation was much worse than we thought so action must be taken now!"

And it worked!
The algal numbers and algal mass in the iron oxide enriched part of the ocean increased dramatically and at an incredible speed.
And every living organism imaginable that consumes algae which is near the bottom of the ocean's food chain, headed straight for this iron oxide, algal enriched few tens of square kilometres patch in the wide open ocean and got stuck into consuming all the available algae followed immediately by everything else that fed on those next up the food chain ocean creatures and so on until they had huge numbers of large fish, sharks and etc all converging onto this patch in what was close to a feeding frenzy.
The experiment in reducing CO2 through enriching ocean waters with FeO2 to increase CO2 absorbing Algae was a complete failure.
All their computer models failed totally, spectacularly and utterly in predicting the real outcome of this global warming reducing experiment.
And that is why you will have trouble finding any reference to this experiment and it's outcome.

The above is exactly the case with the global cooling kooks, they have no concept of the eventual outcomes or the possible and potentially catastrophic outcomes for a lot of planetary life that would result from their experiments.
The real anger should be that these people are still getting millions of dollars to run around and sprout their ideas and theories and their utterly dangerous nonsense and this at the expense of so much other research that would be of far more benefit to mankind.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 31/05/2010 11:55

A mesoscale phytoplankton bloom in the polar Southern Ocean stimulated by iron fertilization

Even the Tree Huggers had very serious doubts over a similar experiment carried out in the South Atlantic plus some other comments on the global cooling proposals from the same site.

And that iron adding exercise to a patch of ocean was a pretty small beer exercise compared to adding a few million tonnes of Sulphur Dioxide to the global atmosphere.
Just imagine if a good sized volcano like Pinitubo in the Phillipines in june 1991 went off at about the same time that this global cooling exercise using SO2 was under way.
Pinitubo which put an estimated 15 to 30 million tonnes of SO2 into the upper levels of the atmosphere and subsequently cooled the northern hemisphere by 0.5 to 0.6C and the planet by 0.4 to 0.5c for the two years following the eruption.
Posted by: adon

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 31/05/2010 21:13

And add to that a La nina. THAT would be interesting!
Posted by: adon

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 31/05/2010 21:49

However ROM it could be a useful tool in getting the fish stocks better managed. If you could "fertilize" areas of the oceans so that they are more productive might have a positive effect for maintaining fish stocks. Rotate areas being fertilized so that disease is kept under control and areas aren't hammered.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 31/05/2010 22:26

Happens in the Atlantic, Adon, when the big dust storms come out of the North African Sahara.
The dust in these storms like any dust storm on the planet contains some iron plus other plant nutrients like phosphorus, sulphur and etc.
All good feed stock for phytoplankton and algal type organisms which are photosynthesising plants and etc and are right near the base of the ocean's food chain.
About the only life forms lower down the ocean food chain are the incredible array of mostly unknown and unidentified bacteria and similar one celled animals.

There are some quite spectacular Modis / Aqua shots of one of these great dust storms stretching out across the Atlantic and there is a consequent measurable increase in the oceanic iron levels under the the tracks of these dust storms and a measurable increase in biological activity.
But If you read that iron fertilization paper you will see that the effects of the extra iron wore off very rapidly and the whole thing collapsed quite quickly.
The paper does not mention the huge influx of large pelagic life [ fish and etc ] although it does refer to pelagic life but of a more phytoplankton type origin.
I read of this experiment quite some time ago and it was in that article that it was mentioned quite extensively that a huge influx of the larger fish and ocean life of all types arrived to take advantage of the vastly increased feed stock that was now on tap in that patch.

Some posters here are probably a bit annoyed at my harsh description of these "scientists" but to make it a little more personal.
Local government councils and councillors are not exactly renown for being a repository of above average intelligence.
So just say your local councilors saw the "Engineering a cooler earth" article or somehow got wind of the fact that to reduce the summer heat and cool their city or town down a bit in summer they need to spray some sulphuric acid over the city / town maybe each day to keep the heat down.
So they organise the the local aerial crop dusting firm to spray some hundreds of litres of sulphuric acid over your city or town each day.
And don't laugh, well not much!
Considering some of the things I have read and heard about local government councilors decisions and actions, nearly anything is possible in this planet's local governments.
Now I won't ask just what you would call your councillors in this case but I bet my description of the persons proposing the above global and similar action would very mild by comparison.
And at least you could go and grab your councilor by the throat to get your displeasure across directly to him or her.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 31/05/2010 23:25

Sort of cruising by.

That "fertilisation" of the seas to increase productivity idea is one that I have thought over more than once. It sort of makes sense... But there is the contra idea that mucking around with ecosystems is bad juju. HOWEVER!

We (as in mankind) have altered the land significantly - that I think is not very debatable. But have we altered it such that we no have the massive dust storms blowing mineral rich soil out into the seas? The amount of red dust that was blown into the Tasman last year must have done so much more than anything artificial!



This is from memory - read this somewhere - the dust was raised as a consequence of the flooding of the red centre the season before. What if our farming practices reduce these types of events? Would we not be reducing the phyto-plankton and ultimately the larger species up the food chain that we target?
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/06/2010 08:23

Ahh! but what if that reduced wind blown dust levels from the farming areas compared to the original pre-farming dust levels were somewhat richer in nutrients ie; fertilizers such as nitrogen, phosphorus and etc. that had been put on the land by farmers over the last century?
So ocean fertlization by these farming area origin dusts might even exceed the original pre-farming land's dust ocean fertilization effects.

Who knows the real answer and who ever will?

Every life form that has ever existed on this planet through all of it's existence has tried and still tries to alter the environment, both it's very local environment and the global environment to maximise it's species reproduction and influence over other life forms.
Sometimes a species gains a large influence for a tiny part of geological time before it fades again from the scene.

Farming and growing food would be a pushover and completely boring if we had d no competition from other life forms!

Mankind has gained a large ascendency or likes to think so over most of the planet and though it is hard to think of and believe, quite possibly he too will just fade from the scene some time into the future as something even more competitive arrives amongst our global life forms.
In the meantime we alter the global environment to suit our species but in not too drastic a fashion so far.

And if our human numbers on this planet start to have a sustained drop after 2050 as many demographers are anticipating and if our population continues it's ongoing migration into great mega cities and if our food production gets more and more efficient and requires less and less land to feed the decreasing global population, I can envisage a time when vast areas of this planet will return to wilderness areas.
As the area around Chernobyl is showing us in real time and not from some esoteric modelling, it only takes a couple of decades before nature moves back into even a grossly humanised patch of this planet and again takes over.
And as far as nature is concerned, mankind becomes just another species who has come, conquered and then faded away into the mists of time.

Is that our fate?


In the meantime why let some clowns try to deliberately alter our planetary environment in a drastic and quite possibly irreversible fashion to fix what they perceive is a so called problem with the planet but which a lot of indicators say may not even exist and a problem that eventually may be proven to never have ever existed.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 03/06/2010 23:45

Funny how you get onto a somewhat strange subject and within days it turns up elsewhere.
In this case originally geo-engineering the planet using iron spread across the oceans to boost biological activity to lock up the supposedly excess CO2
The we moved onto wind blown dust and it's effects on the ocean phytoplankton and algal life so from Science Daily;
Bacterioplankton Responses to Desert Dust in the (Sub)tropical Northeast Atlantic;
Posted by: dave7

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 09/06/2010 20:23

massive volcanic eruptions & earthquakes triggered by & or large metorite strike could happen 'anytime' & put the survivors right back into the 'literally' dark ages with ice age to boot...not a matter of if but 'when'...in the mean time humans still play the 'I AM God' game....agree, the Earth will be fine...
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 09/06/2010 22:33

Climate-change Science

On November 19, 2009, this house-of-concurrence over recent global temperature records came tumbling down when the holy-of-holies repository for all these records — not just the modern ones since we’ve had thermometers, but the paleotemperature analyses that give us a historical account of what temperatures were in the Middle Ages and earlier — was caught fudging data and committing other improprieties. Where were the records held? They were at the CRU — the Climatic Research Unit — located at East Anglia University in merry old England. And the chief keeper of records? None other than discredited Professor Phil Jones.

As Cato’s Dr. Patrick Michaels pointed out in his keynote address at the Heartland conference, we should have been suspicious of Jones all along. Data were constantly being adjusted in a manner to make them appear to show a warming trend. Using the same data, the temperature for 1950 mysteriously drops between IPCC assessment reports, causing the slope of the Temperature vs. Time curve to become steeper, and therefore more ominous. Another example was the squelching of weather-balloon data from the tropics because of alleged “noise” in the readings. Dr. Michaels noted that it is well known that warming is more prevalent in the higher latitudes than in the tropic, so the effect of Jones’ action was “throwing out all the data that didn’t show any warming.” Jones and the CRU were about as forthcoming with temperature data as Colonel Sanders was about his chicken recipe. For example, when in 2005 Australian climatologist Warwick Hughes requested temperature data he thought was suspicious, Jones wrote back, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/3732-climate-change-science
Posted by: dave7

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 11/06/2010 01:19

:)OMG..."we like it the way it is & we dont want to know if its wrong"...pretty much somes up crappy science.
Posted by: dave7

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 12/06/2010 13:50

IF the global warming story helps speed up transition onto 'less' polluting tech. & less pollution in general, then i see that as a good thing...i believe the truth is 'illusive' for ALL....its pretty obvious science can 'prove' whatever it likes...& they choose to believe what ever they 'want' to believe...both sides of this story believe they're 'right'...25 years of work can be pulled to pieces & 'proved' wrong in afraction of the time...& the scientists 'know' this...the more i think about it, the more i believe old farmer joe out in the paddock's apinion is just as relevant & important as anyone elses...& its more & more obvious that 'NO ONE' knows (completely) what the hell is happening or going to happen...not only with the climate but with the weather in general....'none of it' is 100% accurate or fool proof....the truth is anything can happen, anytime...& all the rest is speculation & favorite ego therories.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/06/2010 12:46

An interesting article can be found by typing "The continuing decline in South-East Australian rainfall" in Google.
Posted by: adon

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 14/06/2010 16:39

Originally Posted By: dave7
IF the global warming story helps speed up transition onto 'less' polluting tech. & less pollution in general, then i see that as a good thing


Dave I also have no problem with moving into more diverse and more efficient and renewable enegy sources. However the thing I don't like about the current version of chicken little is that we are seeing huge investment in technologies that are not competitive or will ever be and also are not reliable. Wind for example. VERY expensive, only works when the wind is blowing and nobody seems to want one in their back yard.

We are also being threatened with paying a tax on everything we do/use and buy for people to invest in technologies that are flawed. Either that or they will waste it. Niether is exeptable to me.

I do not "believe" we are at fault for a constantly changing climate. Therefor I also think that it is not right to be shovelling money into some dude pocket cos his flawed idea is considered a savior for a world that is not dying, but elvolving. Markets, when NOT distorted by governments tend to get these things right much more consistantly. When you have this much money is flooding into a market, the decisions that are make are never the right ones but mearly the most subsidised. Trust me I am a farmer, our whole lives are at the mercy of the EU and US subsidy programs. They decide to flood money into a certain crop will cause a massive over production of that product and ruin the price for that product. The crop may not be needed and there have been times when farmers in those countries have been paid to DESTROY the crop because they are unable to handle the product. Either that or they dump the product into a country where a competitor has the majority of supply contracts and just blows the market to peices. The competitor has the prices slashed and could loose the market altogether. The subsidised product may well be inferior to the competing product(usually is) but the market cannot justify the increase price of the usual stuff. Ask a dairy farmer about subsidies and they will tell you a recent tail of woe because of a subsidy war between EU and US.

My point is Government interevention is never good for a market and with the ammount of money going into an energy market would be a disaster for common sence and true solutions.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 14/06/2010 21:37

Just backtracking a bit on that geo-engineering to cool the planet by spreading nutrients across the oceans to increase phytoplankton mass to soak up more CO2.
Went digging and that dust storm [ darn puns! ] of Sept 23rd 2009 dropped a lot of dust from interior Australia onto Sydney as well as everywhere else along the eastern sea board.
The resulting fertilization of the Harbour led to huge increases in phytoplankton mass, a big increase in fish numbers followed by a huge crash of the phytoplankton numbers as the dust nutrients were used up or slowly dispersed and / or sunk into the depths over the next week.
From the SMH and take a look at that small graph!

Dust was blooming marvellous for harbour

Looks like we are safe for a bit longer from the activities of those geo-engineering clowns or at least the ones who want to fertilize the oceans as the phytoplankton mass rises incredibly quickly and then just crashes as the nutrients run out or disperse. So a continuous supply of nutrients would be needed so that 360,000,000 square kilometres of the global oceans would have to be refertiized every few days to be effective in the long term.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 14/06/2010 22:07

And again totally off topic on the subject of Climate Change but somewhat relevant to Climate science and the claims made about a consensus supporting climate change / global warming as we watch what may happen to the cast in stone, long established Big Bang theory of our universe's creation that in almost every aspect has been supported by a broad consensus in the Cosmology Science community.
I do know from some of my Cosmology reading that there are mavericks in Cosmology Science who have pointed out a number of very serious problems for the Big Bang theory so the current theories of how our universe came into being are being seriously questioned by these latest results so for cosmology science it's not all over yet by a long shot.

Astronomers' Doubts About the Dark Side: Errors in Big Bang Data Larger Than Thought?

There is a very strong and distinct message in there for those that are completely inflexible in their beliefs that the planet is warming and warming catastrophically and that rising CO2 levels are solely to blame, all supported by a supposed "consensus" of scientists.

A couple of relevant quotes from Einstein;

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 15/06/2010 16:32

Just a repeat on some of my post; no 868192 , dated 13 / 06 / 10 on the Antarctic Ozone hole from the thread "Cold fronts disappearing".
Quote:
The Antarctic ozone hole and the supposed disastrous consequences of massive amounts of solar UV killing life on Earth, the subject of so much eco driven and ultimately totally futile alarmism about CFC's of the 1980's as the ozone hole is now known to change in size for very good reasons due to the solar radiation effects which in turn are due to the tilt of the Earth and the amount of exposure to solar radiation each pole receives as it runs through the seasons.
It is believed by some CSIRO warmista climatologists that the naturally occurring ozone hole plays a role in our southern weather but this is only based on computer modelling for all that is worth.
And it is becoming quite common in some scientific circles to now admit that the Ozone Hole alarmism was a gigantic fraud as the whole of the alarmism was based on computer model chemical reactions which were never verified under the real, actual conditions of the incredibly thin cold upper atmosphere of the Antarctic and Arctic.
Yep, there's an ozone hole there every year at the North Pole as well but you don't hear about that.


And if you have not yet read it, a science based account on just what conditions are needed and why an ozone hole even forms and a personal experience explanation on how the Ozone hole Hoax was actually created.The Greenhouse Effect, Ozone Hole, and Other Acorns

The above scientific solar effect based explanation for the ozone hole formation is backed up by this bit of research by the University of Leeds [ UK ] [ quite dated as it is in year 2000, Source; American Institute of Physics ] with their observations of a rapid decrease in Ozone levels during an eclipse and the equally quick recovery when the eclipse was over.
Quote:
Researchers at the University of Leeds (UK), on the other hand, have observed a direct and rapid connection between atmospheric chemistry and ultraviolet light from the sun. During the 97% eclipse of the sun over Ascot, England, local ozone concentrations fell to 60% of typical daytime levels, and quickly returned to normal after the event. The study demonstrates the dynamic connection between sunlight and the photochemistry of atmospheric gasses which may contribute to global warming, smog formation, and acid rain.

And that if you read both of the above articles you will see how they tie in with one another very well.
The Ozone Hole is just an ages long, naturally occurring phenomena that results from the lack of solar radiation effects on the chemical reactions in the the high atmosphere at those very high latitudes for some few months of the year.

The whole grossly alarmist Ozone Hole Hoax was just a warmup run for the really, seriously alarmist Global Warming / climate change hoax and both have been run to their alarmist limits by the same imperialistic global power and wealth seeking organisations.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/06/2010 08:46

Global Temperatures: (2500 BC to 2040 AD) - The Man Made Global Warming Hoax

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTp5h9BuQtQ&feature=related
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 26/06/2010 08:51

This seems very interesting and I'm sure will answer some Questions

John Dodds: Gravity causes Climate Change
1. GHE Mis-Application by IPCC & Computer Models

The IPCC says (AR4, CH1, WG1., p116) "The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short
wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet) part of the spectrum. ... Adding more of a
greenhouse gas, such as CO2, to the atmosphere intensifies the greenhouse effect (GHE), thus warming Earth’s
climate." These two statements are patently false, and extremely misleading.
First the much larger forces of gravity from the sun, moon, and planets acting on the Earth, result in a continuous
energy input(& output in order to maintain equilibrium temperatures) to the earth. The energy manifests itself as

Earth rotation, movements of the oceans and liquid core in tides and currents etc, and friction and the Earth Kinetic
Energy as measured by temperature. In addition orbital movement of the Earth relative to the sun moon and planets
results in a Gravitational Potential Energy that also adds to or removes Earth’s kinetic energy resulting in
temperature variations. The energy from gravity is much larger than the 1366W/m^2 energy from solar insolation
used by IPCC as the sole source of incoming energy in the evaluation of global warming. The energy from gravity,
the energy available from Potential Energy and the energy from solar insolation will all result in Earth energy
maximums at the same time, when Earth is closest to the gravity sources, primarily the Sun, Jupiter and Venus.
Second, Arrhenius in 1896 said that adding an energy photon to a Greenhouse Gas (GHG), results in the Greenhouse
warming effect (GHE). It requires all THREE components to get warming. Failure to add the energy photon results
in a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy. An object can not warm itself up in violation of the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics without adding the extra energy. Simply adding a GHG will not create warming, unless it absorbs
a photon. These errors negate all conclusions by the IPCC models.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27343303/Gravity-Causes-Climate-Change
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 26/06/2010 09:05

Due primarily to the eccentric orbits of Jupiter and Saturn, and the subsequent Earth eccentricity caused by Jupiter
etc, the energy from gravity coming into the Earth varies in both magnitude (due to distance) and latitude angles
above and below the Sun-Earth ecliptic plane. This latitude variation results in the energy source for the North-
South variations in El Nino/La Nina, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the SOI, and the NAO etc , and desert
movements (West Africa/Sahara/Australia etc). There have been numerous studies that have identified the
correlation of El Nino etc to the Earth temperature variations and weather
patterns/hurricanes/cyclones/drought/rainfall etc. This paper identifies that the gravity/PE variations primarily due
to Jupiter Saturn and Venus eccentricity are the direct cause of the increases and decreases in energy that drive the
El Nino etc weather patterns. This makes these patterns predictable, in a manner similar to how tide tables are
predictable based on the positions of the Earth rotation and the sun and moons gravity.
The combination of a reduced energy input after every sixty year peak (1880, 1940, 1998, 2058…) and the location
of primarily Jupiter at its most extreme southern latitude point, results in the recent northern hemisphere colder
winters (1999-2009), and southern hemisphere warmer summer on the same 60 year cycle as the Jupiter/Saturn
resonances. This is why the current northern winters are colder, like they were from the 1940-70. The more
southern location of Jupiter forces a reduced energy input to the Hadley circulation cells moving them south from
the colder Arctic into the USA, Europe and Asia, the more temperature southern US weather moves into the
Caribbean resulting in fewer hurricanes, the warmer tropical weather due to increased Jupiter gravity moves further
south into Northern Australia and Indonesia causing more frequent and stronger cyclones going further south, and
the hot dry air in the Sahara and Central Australia moves south causing more droughts and fires in Southwest Africa,
South Australia and Victoria. Thirty years later as Jupiter/Saturn get more northern and further away, the cycle
reverses and the northern cooling reverses resulting in milder northern winters for 30 years (1970-98). Of course
there are also 12 year (Jupiter orbit) and one year (Earth orbit) sub cycles. The latter are called seasons.
The knowledge of the gravitational energy forcing of longer term weather patterns will allow much more accurate
forecasts of ice ages, drought/wet seasons, hurricane/cyclone seasons, and general agricultural conditions to allow
man to adapt accordingly.

The larger gravity sources of energy and potential energy (e.g. gravity causes tidal energy etc) are not included in the insolation only based IPCC AR4 analyses which thus invalidates these analyses and conclusions In addition the solar insolation is the sole source of energy for the Milankovitch cycle theory, but adding gravity as a source of energy solves its most significant problem of having insufficient energy variation to account for ice ages.
CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the current IPCC analyses attribute global warming to the addition of CO2 to the air, when in fact the
limited amount of energy photons coming into the earth limits the amount of greenhouse effect warming.. This
results in more EXCESS, unused CO2 in the air but no additional warming.
The alternate sources of energy created by gravity due to planetary eccentricity and the subsequent Gravitational
Potential Energy dictate the global climate temperatures. The basis for the gravity and Potential Energy sources is

discussed in John Dodds Wobble Theory of Global Warming available at www.scribd.com
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/07/2010 22:54

The science moves on!
From the "Resilient Earth" blog.

"Ocean Conveyor Belt Dismissed"

It looks like the world's oceanographers are in the process of abandoning the Ocean Conveyor Belt model that has been used for a couple of decades to explain the ocean's role in the distribution of heat energy around the planet.
The various ocean data float systems are showing that Gyres or gigantic ocean eddies are the real force in the ocean overturning processes which drive the global heat energy transfer systems.
A further consequence of this new reassessment by oceanographers of the ocean heat energy distribution processes is that all the GCM's used in climate forecasting which has a large reliance on heat energy distribution in and by oceans and by the Ocean Conveyor Belt as it was understood, are now effectively obsolete.
Which in turn means that their climate forecasting abilities are now ineffective to be polite or not worth the paper those predictions are printed on.

Note that the oceanography reappraisal outlined below refers to the North and South Atlantic, the two most researched oceans.
So don't be surprised if a further number of completely unexpected developments come to light when the Pacific, the Indian and the Southern Ocean start to get some more attention paid to them.
The following is just a quote from the Resilient Earth article as an example of what the oceanography research science is starting to turn up.

Quote:
Here is a list of recent discoveries that have shaken the foundation of the conveyor belt theory.

Most of the subpolar-to-subtropical exchange in the North Atlantic occurs along interior pathways.
The deep deep western boundary current (DWBC) breaks up into eddies at 11°S.
There is little meridional coherence in the overturning transport from one gyre to the next .
Wind forcing, rather than buoyancy forcing, can play a dominant role in changing the transport of the overturning.
The southward transport of deep waters at 8°S, off the Brazilian coast, was shown to be carried entirely by migrating coherent eddies.
Floats launched within the DWBC at 53°N do not follow a continuous boundary current, but instead take multiple paths to the subtropics, including interior pathways far removed from the DWBC.
Two recent studies have found unexpected pathways in the upper ocean.
A recent study shows that MOC transport in the subtropical North Atlantic is susceptible to variability in the "leakage" of warm and salty water into the South Atlantic.
Studies showing little to no coherence across gyre boundaries have prompted interest in monitoring the overturning circulation in the South Atlantic and the subpolar North Atlantic.
The connectivity of the overturning and, more importantly, of the meridional heat transport from one basin to the next can no longer be assumed on interannual time scales.

When all of these observations are combined, they indicate that the conventional conceptual model of ocean overturning needs revamping. As Dr. Lozier put it: “In sum, the impact of eddies on our concept of a continuous lower limb for the ocean’s overturning has evolved from an understanding that eddies can detrain and entrain fluid along the DWBC to the recognition that the DWBC can, at certain locales and perhaps certain times, be a series of migrating eddies, to the realization that eddy-driven flow provides an alternate pathway for deep waters to spread globally.”

In other words, it doesn't work as simply as we thought. Lozier is in a good position to make such a judgment, since it is partly due to her work that scientists are revisiting the conveyor belt model. As noted on this blog in “Conveyor Belt Model Broken,” work by Lozier and Amy Bower of Wood’s Hole, using RAFOS float data, showed that there was something fundamentally wrong with how the ocean's overturning flow was being modeled.

By analyzing the divagating float paths, it was discovered that ocean currents did not behave as expected. Reported back in May of 2009, their discovery had the potential to affect both short term and long term climate change. This is because ocean currents not only redistribute surface warmth, the oceans themselves are a vast reservoir for heat and carbon dioxide. I concluded that this finding invalidated the IPCC's GCM climate model predictions, because the models were based on incorrect behavior of the ocean overturning currents.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 02/07/2010 10:14

An improved understanding of how heat is transported around the oceans won't change the rate at which Co2 is adding heat to our planet.

Things that could change in the models:
- the rate at which heat is moved from the surface to the depths. This has implications for the amount of 'heating in the pipeline' that we can expect in the future.
- the distribution of heat around the planet - regional variations in climate change.
- changes in cloud cover, water vapour, and snow/ice cover - changing the feedbacks that apply to Co2 warming.

And of course no one knows whether these changes will result in greater or lesser warming predicted by the models.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/07/2010 08:01

Email scandal leads to new openness in science debates

LONDON: Senior climate scientists in Europe and the United States have conceded their world has changed irrevocably - and for the better - following the scandal over leaked emails discussing ways to slant climate change data.

As Sir Muir Russell, the chairman of the inquiry into the leak of University of East Anglia emails, finalises his report for publication in Britain tomorrow, scientists agree that the affair was a ''game changer''.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climat...00705-zxm6.html
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/07/2010 10:51

Mike,

I would like to know what the explanation is for how AGW predicts an expansion of the Hadley cells. Do you know?

If this has already been discussed and I missed it, could someone please post a link, thanks smile.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/07/2010 14:43

Cosmic, I know little about how and why the Hadley cell has been predicted to expand.

I did make a comment on this topic in the thread 'Cold fronts disappering in SE Australia' (link)
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/07/2010 21:09

Looks like the Great Global Warming Retreat is getting under way!

From "The Register"

Mega new climate science:
'Runaway' effect exaggerated.
Global warming models set for shake-up by new data.


The first of the two papers, both to be published in "Science" looks at the claimed positive feedbacks that were supposed to lead to runaway global warming and finds there is no evidence that this will occur due to the incorrect assumptions used in the GCM's
Quote:
"Contrary to previous studies, we show that the sensitivity of ecosystem respiration to temperature variations seems to be independent from external factors and constant across ecosystems."

According to Macheha and his crew:

This latest study suggests that previous field studies failed to disentangle processes acting on different time-scales. The new, standard value for various ecosystems' sensitivity to air temperature suggests a less pronounced short-term climate-carbon feedback compared to previous estimates.
Carbon feedback is considered one of the main reasons to be really, urgently worried about global warming and carbon emissions. The exact rate of recent warming - and even more so, warming before reliable records were kept, which strongly affects the trend over time - is hotly debated, but most analysts say that present trends would see a few degrees of temperature rise at the absolute most in this century


The second study;
Quote:
This second team, led by Macheha's fellow Max-Planck Institut für Biogeochemie boffin Christian Beer, used the flux-tower readings and other data to calculate that the Earth's green plants suck in no less than 123 billion tons of CO2 each year. For comparison, human-caused emissions are currently considered to be running at about 31 billion tons.

With that sort of deficit in anthropogenic carbon output, it raises the question grin confused as to where all that extra carbon will come from to feed those voracious plants all the CO2 that they apparently so desperately need!
Posted by: majorowe

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/07/2010 23:15

I would think that if they presently suck in 123b tonnes and humans provide 31b tonnes they other 92b tonnes are naturally produced already, ie. there is no deficit, no? How can we know that CO2 sinks can continue to absorb these levels of CO2? Also note that there are less and less green plants.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 07/07/2010 08:31

How can you say that majorowe???? In the past there were greater deserts and in ice ages, there would be very little growth as most plants on the planet are tropical and don't like the cold. A plant census would be interesting...
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 07/07/2010 10:01

Originally Posted By: ROM
The first of the two papers, both to be published in "Science" looks at the claimed positive feedbacks that were supposed to lead to runaway global warming and finds there is no evidence that this will occur due to the incorrect assumptions used in the GCM's


This paper looks at carbon cycle feedbacks. It finds that they are still positive, but less positive than previous studies have found. Many climate models used to predict climate change in the past have not included any carbon cycle feedbacks at all, and it is only more recent models that have begun to do so.

IPCC official estimates from fourth assessment predict that carbon cycle feedback will add between 0.1 and 1.5 degrees of warming over the next century. (link)

Originally Posted By: majorowe
I would think that if they presently suck in 123b tonnes and humans provide 31b tonnes they other 92b tonnes are naturally produced already, ie. there is no deficit, no? How can we know that CO2 sinks can continue to absorb these levels of CO2? Also note that there are less and less green plants.


Actually more reasonable is that plants are in rough equilibrium, and so suck in 123b tonnes, and produce 123b tonnes each year, as part of the natural cycle of growth and decay (growth = suck in Co2, decay = release the Co2 again).

Any increase in the total amount of plant mass, or the amount of dead but not decayed plant matter in soils will of course correspond to more Co2 being absorbed by plants than being released back to the atmosphere.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 07/07/2010 10:58

Just checked again Mike before posting and saw your post.

There is a lot of postings on feedbacks at the moment and the engineering types who deal with feedbacks, some on a daily basis in their work, are quite adamant that the predominant feedbacks have to be very definitely negative as positive feedbacks lead to a runaway reaction, in this case to runaway global warming.
As any such runaway permanent global warming event simply has not occurred to the planet over the last 4.5 billion years nor has a permanent snowball earth come about, so the predominant feedbacks over the life of this planet has had to have been negative.
Th negative feedbacks always return the earth temperatures to somewhere around the temperatures we enjoy right now and which are suitable for life and have done so for many hundreds of millions of years past.


Majorwee.
Not you this time Mike as I agree with you on this one!

Sometimes you do wonder??
So the CO2 sinks on the planet might not be able to absorb all that extra CO2 that mankind is generating.

Well the CO2 that we "generate" or "release" is a better word has been floating around in the atmosphere some many of millions of years ago until it was tied up in plant growth and then went on to form coal which we now burn for our immense energy needs, the cheap energy that is the sole reason and the fundamental factor that underlies the basis of our modern civilisation, the benefits of which we all enjoy and which are enabling us to sit here warm, reasonably contented and with full stomachs, at a keyboard that can reach for the first time in all of mankind's history, to any place on this planet and debate this subject.
Without that energy a few of us would, if we had managed to survive our birth and survived the diseases and odd times of near starvation, still be digging around in the ground for tubers and hunting through dark, dank forests for small animals and edible plants to try and survive.

Where exactly did those enormous beds, literally some millions of gigatonnes of Calcium Carbonate [ CA CO3 ]; ie Limestone, that lay in immense beds right across the planetary surface and sub surface come from?
The shells of the minute sea creatures over the aeons of time fixed the high levels of the then available CO2 into their shells which sank to the bottoms of the oceans and formed those immense beds of limestone ie; calcium carbonate and continue to do so today and will probably continue to do so until life on this planet is finally extinguished.

Less and less green plants?
Just where in the hell can you find any justification to back such a ridiculous statement up?
Satellite data over many years show that the Amazon rain forests are actually increasing in area.
Crops around the world have increased in biomass and yields continually by some 2% per year since the mid 1980's and crop biologists think about 20% of that increase in crop biomass and yields is believed to be due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels over that period.
But then I guess that the immense quantities and areas of the simple lowly CO2 absorbing plants like grasses, lichens, ocean phytoplankton, grain and pasture crops and etc don't count as CO2 absorbing plants in some of the warmista's estimations.
Apparently, if we are to believe literally the ideology as apparently expressed here, only the spectacular rain forests and big trees absorb carbon.

There was some work done on the relative CO2 absorbing capacities of native grasslands and natural forests some years ago in the USA.
Over the lifetime of a forest of some hundred or so, years, it was shown that the native grasslands over the same period fixed more CO2 than the forests.

And I might add that I have been flying aircraft and gliders over western Victoria since 1959 and there are a damn sight more trees and tree cover right across this large area now than there ever was when I started flying.
Furthermore there are historical records from the pioneers that first settled this area which record large regions where there were no trees but which are now populated with a high population of native, natural tree cover.
This is only one tiny region but it is an indication of just how ridiculous a blanket statement can be.

And it might be a good idea to read the papers for yourself which are now posted on WUWT.
Breath of the Earth: Cycling carbon through terrestrial ecosystems
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 07/07/2010 14:12

Originally Posted By: ROM
Just checked again Mike before posting and saw your post.
There is a lot of postings on feedbacks at the moment and the engineering types who deal with feedbacks, some on a daily basis in their work, are quite adamant that the predominant feedbacks have to be very definitely negative as positive feedbacks lead to a runaway reaction, in this case to runaway global warming.
As any such runaway permanent global warming event simply has not occurred to the planet over the last 4.5 billion years nor has a permanent snowball earth come about, so the predominant feedbacks over the life of this planet has had to have been negative.
Th negative feedbacks always return the earth temperatures to somewhere around the temperatures we enjoy right now and which are suitable for life and have done so for many hundreds of millions of years past.



According to engineers runaway feedback and positive feedback are the same thing. According to climate scientists you can have positive feedback without runaway feedback.

This is because they use different defintions for positive feedback.

An engineer asks 'if I have a system in equilibrium, and move it slightly away from the equilibrium, will it move further away from equilibrium'. If yes feedback is positive.

A climate scientist asks 'if I have a chaotic system moving chaotically around an equilibrium, and then apply a continued forcing to push this towards a new equilibrium, will the new equilbrium be further from the old equilibrum than can be explained purely by the forcing, or do other changes in the system act to reinforce this forcing.' If so feedback is positive.

A positive feedback does not guarantee runaway conditions. For instance if every degree of warming adds enough water vapour to increase temps by 0.5 degrees, and we add enough Co2 to get a degree of warming, we get:
- 1 degree of warming
- enough extra water vapor due to this first degree to get an extra 0.5 degree of warming.
- the extra 0.5 degree of warming adds enough water vapor to get an extra 0.25 degree of warming.

The sum is 1 + 0.5 + 0.5*0.5 + ....0.5 ^ n....

No matter how far you add up this sum the total will never get above 2 degrees of warming and there is no runaway effect.
Posted by: majorowe

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 08/07/2010 01:58

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
How can you say that majorowe???? In the past there were greater deserts and in ice ages, there would be very little growth as most plants on the planet are tropical and don't like the cold. A plant census would be interesting...


Yes perhaps, over scales of thousands of years, however it would surprise me immensely if there were less green plants just before the industrial revolution than now. Europe's forests are certainly not what they use to be hundreds of years ago and from most accounts the Sahara is growing all the time. This said it depends on the definition of a green plant - I do concede that grasslands may fix more CO2 than forests over short terms.

ROM's comment that the Amazon is actually increasing in size is the first I have ever heard of this claim. Indeed, a Google search with

amazon forest satellite "increasing in area"

brings up ROM's post in this thread as the number one hit. If you post one reference to back this up ROM I reckon I could post about 20 to counter it, and working out whether a forest is increasing or decreasing in size is a lot more straight foward that determining if climate change is human induced.

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
Well the CO2 that we "generate" or "release" is a better word has been floating around in the atmosphere some many of millions of years ago...


The biosphere was a very differnt place many millions of years ago. I'd imagine that the quasi-steady state that the earth had evolved to up until about 2000 years ago was somewhat different to that during the ancient, ancient times. In my opinion it is imprduent to say that just because there was abundant CO2 or high temperatures present millions of years ago that the biosphere in it's current state could handle them now without going off the rails.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 08/07/2010 08:34

Climate e-mail inquiry prepares to report

An inquiry into questions raised by the so-called ClimateGate affair will release its conclusions on Wednesday.

The Independent Climate Change Email Review was commissioned by the UK's University of East Anglia following the hacking of emails from its servers.

Climate sceptics allege that the emails undermine the integrity of researchers at the university's Climatic Research Unit and of climate science in general.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10530554.stm
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 23/07/2010 08:17

How is it that this fella is not getting any air time in the media?

On the Global Average IR Radiation Budget
http://miskolczi.webs.com/kt97_comments.pdf

THE STABLE STATIONARY VALUE OF THE EARTH'S
GLOBAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC PLANCK-WEIGHTED
GREENHOUSE-GAS OPTICAL THICKNESS
http://miskolczi.webs.com/
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 23/07/2010 23:34

That is an intersting find you have there. I am trying to analyse his logic and understand why he thinks there is a constant value for the absorbtion of heat in the atmosphere. He still admits this;
"The apparent increase in global temperatures cannot be accounted for any supposed change in the infrared absorption properties of our atmosphere."
And also writes this at the end;
"These empirical results—says Miskolczi in the last sentence of his paper—could well be challenged by a comparable empirical method"
I tend to think that his calculation from the databases he mentions could be limited by the quality of the data, he mentions this;
"the empirical values are fluctuating around this theoretically predicted constant".
May be fluctuating due to the data. Data quality would be vastly different many years ago to now.
Perhaps its also possible that any change in the constant is being masked by an exactly proportional change in the heat flux of the atmosphere. In other words you can raise the temperature of the whole system and still get the same calculation but the fact remains that the temperature is higher in one set of data and lower in the other.

Anyway I am not ruling anything out yet, it is certainly some food for thought, would be good news if it was true.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/07/2010 14:24

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/26/giss-swiss-cheese/#more-22599
Another GISS masterpiece of made up data!!!
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/08/2010 07:51

Something you climate modellers might be interested in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctRvtxnNqU8&feature=related
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/08/2010 09:26

Prof.Ian Plimer puts Tony Jones in his place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbI2PQBc_9w&feature=related
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/08/2010 11:56

Prof. Ian Plimer explains how the planet works, 5 parts. Extremely informative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VDDNgl-UPk&feature=related
Posted by: Dreamerdan

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/08/2010 12:02

The heading for this post is slightly misleading in that there is not much science behind the whole global warming debacle. There is a lot of supposition and scientists arguging but with a field of science barely 40 years old what do you expect? People tend to forget that the whole field of environmental science has only been around since the 1940's and is not built on scientific principles but more public sentiment , non science sentimentality and media driven drama. I am qualified in Environmental Management and it would have to be the most un scientific course I have ever engaged in. It is largely driven by 'what ifs' and 'this could happens' rather than by any strict scientific criteria. I agree it is scary if we get things wrong but far scarier in my mind is the current plethora of climate engineering theories out there when we do not even know how our planet works to a large degree. You only have to read through the posts in here to prove that we still 'don't know what we don't know'.
Am I a denier?..yes definitely. I grew up in the farming district in Western Australia and even in my lifetime I remember far hotter summers and have experienced 2 droughts that I remember but according to doomsayers of the Global Warming Debacle life as we know it is about to cease to exist. My father who is 20 years my senior says his theory is the weather works in 30 year cycles as he can remember similar periods of dry winters etc in his lifetime and his Fathers.
Until we reach a level of scientific certainy, which I think is another 20 to 50 years away, we need to ignore non scientific advise from the Global Warming Debacle (more money in my pocket scienctists) which basically to date has given us no workable solutions anyway.
Just in closing I would like everyone to remember that 200 years of weather data is miniscule in any model trying to predict patterns in a system that is not understood or known. Even current weather predictions at best are only 30 percent accurate. With all our 'knowldge' and computer modelling watch how the synoptic patterns cjhange over a week. And scientists claim they can predict the weather in years to come? Give me a break!!!
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/08/2010 12:13

And from ICECAP; The Ozone Hole Debacle from an Insider [ Aug 5th ]

And from Nature; Chemists poke holes in ozone theory

The Ozone Hole scam so heavily promoted by the green and environmental groups is estimated to have cost the economies of the western countries around [ 1989 ] US $130 billion.
Dupont was by far the biggest beneficiary of that imposed on the public largesse as they held the patents on the replacement freon that was supposed to be less damaging to atmospheric ozone.
[ There have been questions raised in the last few years about the long term cancer causing abilities of this particular form of supposedly non ozone damaging freon.]
Huge amounts of taxpayer's funds were channeled to all sorts of ozone hole "researchers", some who just had to be very questionable, who hopped onto the Ozone Hole gravy train with great gusto.
Exactly what we are seeing with the great global warming / climate change scam.

As was recently posted by a very respected UK scientist, there are tens of thousands of scientists in the UK.
They have locked up politicians, bureaucrats, bankers, business men and many others for fraud and corruption but we have never even charged a scientist with fraud and corruption although there have been innumerable examples of fraudulently created and altered up data to support some pre ordained research outcomes.
And some of those outcomes had some serious consequences for the public both financially and socially and perhaps even personally in some circumstances.

As I have posted before, we are now seeing exactly the same type of total corruption pattern amongst a part of the scientific research class re data manipulation and plain corrupted research in climate research as was first seen in the great Ozone Hole scam
And unfortunately, we as the public, have contributed immense amounts of tax money that we have expended our personal time and effort to earn, channelled to these rent seeking and sometime quite corrupt climate " researcher"s and "scientists".

The good and honest researchers and scientists need and deserve our full support for that is where the advances in our civilisation now come from but to weed out the corrupt or the just gravy train riders in science needs the scientists themselves to do the house cleaning before somebody far more ruthless and less tolerant of the foibles of science decides to do it for them.

And if science and scientists think they are beyond being touchable and some of them seem to believe this, then they would be wise to have a look at what is happening to another very elitist and somewhat arrogant group in the UK, the artistic element which has now come to believe even here in Australia, that it has a unchallengable right to access as much public funding as it wants.
[ We have a very good example of this right now in Horsham where a small group of performing arts interested persons wants some $14 million [ plus, plus ] dollars to be spent by the local cash strapped City Council just to build a theatre for them.]
Due to the huge government deficit, the new UK Tory government is cutting back it's budget allocation to the arts by some 19 million pounds, not much in the scheme of the whole budget at this time but an indicator on what is to come as economies and governments struggle to get their economies off the floor and to start to wind back the very high levels of public and private debt.

And a lot more of a much harder headed approach to science funding is not far into the future I would suggest and as the public perceptions on climate science in particular swing ever more towards a high level of cynicism as to the honesty and integrity of climate scientists, something of their own making with the ridiculous statements attributing any weather situation to climate warming or change and the failure to be completely open in all their data and computation methods, it is inevitable that this will eventually wash off onto the politicians and bureaucracy and science, all of science, even the best science researchers and research will consequently suffer.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/08/2010 12:33

And a PS which I should have included in the post above.
All those chemical reactions that proved that Ozone was being broken down by the chlorine gases from Freons were modelled [ as indicated in the Nature article ] and were never actually demonstrated in the laboratories until quite recently with the consequent outcomes that you can read about in that "Nature News" article.
The whole debacle was in all likelihood a totally unnecessary and immense cost imposed on our society by some almost cult like beliefs from certain cult like organisations.
You will have to be fairly naive not to see the parallels with the modelling and the consequent doomsday forecasts that are being promulgated by those same organisations and often the same personnel and "researchers" today on global warming / climate change
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/08/2010 12:35

Originally Posted By: ROM

The Ozone Hole scam so heavily promoted by the green and environmental groups is estimated to have cost the economies of the western countries around [ 1989 ] US $130 billion.


Those alarmists who predicted regulation to protect the Ozone layer would destroy the economy were quite wrong weren't they? $130 billion for the western world over the last 20 years is roughly 10 cents per week per person.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 06/08/2010 12:59

Just keep adding all those ten cents per person per week to every totally useless cause and project Mike, and very soon there is not much left for all those things that really matter.
Yep, your one little ten cents per week spent on a totally useless and corrupted program based on corrupted and completely unproven science and modelled outcomes amounts to very little, Mike.
But hundreds of billions of ten cents spent on those same corrupt programs means that a lot of people have to go without something that would have been of considerable benefit to them like health programs, cheaper energy, enough food perhaps and a higher level of security and safety.

Fortunately as you are in my opinion no doubt a very decent person, I seriously doubt that you are actually advocating that corrupt schemes founded on corrupted science should ever be funded even by a miserable ten cents per week per person on this planet.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 08/08/2010 12:13

There has been a lot of very heavy and strident pressure by the AGW lobby to "decarbonise" the "economy".
Very few of the alarmists who are promoting "decarbonising of the economy" seem to actually realise or even are capable of thinking about the social and economic consequences or worse, that such a costly and socially disruptive program will actually have any effect whatsoever.
With an entirely fixated and emotionaly based outlook on AGW they fail to realise just what the so called "decarbonisation", the proposed attempt to reduce of one of life's essential atmospheric gasses, CO2, means in the real costs to the national economies, the living standards of citizens and the effects on our social system and finally the real cost, socially and economically, to the individual.

Roger Pielke Jnr, an AGW believer but one who also believes that anthropogenic increases in atmospheric levels of CO2 do not have any serious implications or pose any serious problems for the climate and life on Earth has noted a study on the social and economic consequences of the proposed decarbonisation on a relatively small and isolated community in Colorado.
Such a relatively isolated community makes it much easier to examine and model the effects of such a decarbonisation program by reducing the outside external forces and effects influencing the study.
Basically the study shows that any such program to "decarbonise" an economy are highly damaging to all aspects of the economy and has very serious implications and in the end has no visible effect on rising CO2 levels.
And it also shows that any such attempts to "decarbonise" are doomed to total failure but at a very high economic and social cost to the those who are supposed to actually benefit, the citizens.
Ie; the whole idea of attempting to " decarbonise" an economy is bankrupt even before it gets off the ground.

"Climate Policy on the Front Lines"

And another Roger Pielke Jnr article on decarbonisation;

"Decarbonisation of the Colorado Economy"

And the actual study can be read here [ CO2 Emissions Targets ] ]

The reality is that it will be much better and easier to adapt to any new climate circumstances as nature and mankind have always done for the uncounted millenniums past, be they global warming or global cooling, than to attempt to try and change the entire global climate system to fit a preconcieved and arguably seriously misplaced belief founded on highly suspect and unproven numerical models,that we live in the exactly correct global climate and temperatures of the moment.
Particularly when historically we know that there have always been swings and changes in the global climate, often as geological, paleo, ice core and cave stalagmite studies ares showing, big changes in the global climate over only a few decades.

The proposed attempt to modify and change the future global climate by decarbonisation at immense social and economic cost for for so many of the world's citizens is increasingly being shown to be of no actual benefit or will even change in the slightest the ever changing global climate.
To think otherwise is the height of folly and hubris on the part of a tiny section of the human race.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 08/08/2010 20:55

While I’m not finger pointing, I think this is a big enough issue that requires some careful thought and less in the way of broad, sweeping generic claims about what it is believed we do and don’t know about the Earth’s climate system.

I believe it would be pertinent to consider alternative and even contradictory points of view smile. It would be unfortunate to see this debate become one-sided.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 09/08/2010 07:20

-Cosmic-

Lost in the shrillness something very interesting is happening in fuel technology. Without reference to the debate, economic necessity (supply and price) is giving the designer fuel revolution the impetus to completely replace fossil carbon releasing fuels within a lifetime, if not sooner.

In short, whether we like it or not, energy change is upon us. It isn't going to cause massive economic calamity, but it will allow around two billion people in the rising economic super states to take their place in the sun too.

It is happening because it needs to happen.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 09/08/2010 10:11

Originally Posted By: ROM
Basically the study shows that any such program to "decarbonise" an economy are highly damaging to all aspects of the economy and has very serious implications and in the end has no visible effect on rising CO2 levels.


The study referred to claims that a reduction of 20% in emissions by 2020 is too fast too soon. It does not say anything about such a reduction actually damaging the economy, but simply trys to estimate the fastest feasible rate at which emissions reduction can be achieved. A large part of the study's argument is that the required rate of reduction in carbon intensity is 3 times faster than what has been achieved before. Or in other words: 'its never been done before therefore it can't be done'.

From what I can understand of the issues I personally do suspect that a 20% reduction in 20 years is overly aggressive as a target. This is primarily due to the fact that it will take time for the renewable energy industry to expand to a size capable of providing these reductions.

Your interpretation of the study's results seems very alarmist to me.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 09/08/2010 10:30

This time Ben, I agree with you.
I hope it's not the kiss of death grin

Perhaps the fossil fuels will only be fully replaced by late in this century as the heritage and all pervasive internal combustion engine technology and the steam turbine technology of the 20th and first half of the 21st century will take at least close to a century to phase out.
If we look at the example of the steam piston engine technology of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century, it has taken the greater part of a century or perhaps your "lifetime" example to phase out those technologies.

Alternate fuels are coming as Ben has pointed out in the past as are a whole host of alternative power generation technologies.
Which power generation technologies, both mobile power and base load power generation systems will become predominate, nobody can know or even guess at at this point.
I suspect that there will be a number of different types of power technologies all operating side by side and differentiated by their usability and efficiencies in specific fields of mobile, stationary and base load power generation systems.

A lot of money is going to be spent on the development of numerous types of power generation technologies, most of which will go nowhere but that is the way our civilisation advances.

As an example there has apparently been a very big increase on the global scene, in the numbers of small exploration companies all trying to get in on the Lithium bandwagon.
Lithium is supposed to be the most essential element required by the new high capacity electric battery systems which will be used in the new generations of electrically powered vehicles.
Somewhere in the last few days in my reading of the various news sources, I came across a brief report that a highly respected research organisation had modeled at this stage, the chemical exchanges and resultant energy output of a battery that at least matched a lithium based battery's output and weight and size but used common and much cheaper elements to do the job.
The new lithium exploration companies might just be heading down an expensive but blind alley and so we advance.

Or take the newest advances in solar cells where the very latest cell has somewhere around 50% efficiency, which when fully developed the output from will about match the cost of the energy from coal fired base load power station.

"New Solar Energy Conversion Process Could Double Solar Efficiency of Solar Cells"

A phenomenal advance in efficiency and reduction in costs and for Australia with it's vast sunshine lit desert areas, a technology ideally suited to our economy.
The need now is an energy storage system that will enable vast amounts of energy to be stored for some hours or even days at very low cost.
And that too will eventually be developed as the need is seen and if there are profits to be made.

Not only that but with cheap solar energy there is the possibility of producing large volumes of some of the new artificial mobile fuels, the production of which might need large amounts of cheap energy, preferably not fossil fuel generated energy, to power mobile equipment and vehicles.
Perhaps another large Australian export industry, "canned sunshine" in the form of artificially created mobile fuel, will be established over the next half century.

The real story behind all of this is that we should forget about decarbonising anything.
To do so is about asking mankind to go back to using stone axes as the steel ones take too much energy to make.
To decarbonise is to look back.
Instead, some of and it would only a relatively small part of the resources that are proposed to be put into the retrograde decarbonisation program, should be placed into research into new power generation technologies and as these new power generation technologies are developed, the so called decarbonisation process will happen in any case.
Of course we could start right now here in Australia by building a few of the latest Generation 3.5 nuclear power generators or step into the development of the thorium reactors with their even lower radiation levels and low waste levels, all of which now are inherently safe designs with only a fraction of the radioactive waste of the earlier nuclear reactors.
However stupidity and pigheadness continues to reign amongst the highest levels of the political and environmental latte class and so we stagnate as a nation while others continue to advance in energy technology and skills which we will eventually have to buy at an immense cost.

Unfortunately there are far too many political organisations, politicians, bureaucracies, so called green environmental organisations and fairly rapacious financial institutions most of which are quite backward in their thinking but all of whom have huge political and financial interests invested in the AGW decarbonisation proposal to follow the sensible path of forgetting about decarbonisation and putting more and larger resources into exploring new energy technologies as replacements for our current mobile, stationary and base load power generation systems.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 09/08/2010 10:58

The critical thing about large scale designer algal fuels is that we do not have to change the mechanical technology.

The challenge in aerospace was to come up with a non fossil releasing liquid that had exactly the same per volume energy equivalent on burning, and the same stability at the extremely low temperatures of prolonged high altitude cruise, as well as the same characteristics as aviation grade kerosense in a wing parked in the equatorial sun for a day.

It was a very tall order, and is termed a 'drop in' fuel, in that a jet could refuel at Singapore for example and top up tanks partly filled with refined kerosene with the alternative fuel with no modifications required, nor any discernible difference in the performance of the jet.

Two years ago, such fuels were made and flown as blends in jet engines, including engines deliberately shut down and restarted at altitude.

This had been considered a 20 year project as little as two years before the first successful trials. In Berlin in June a small aerobatic turbine aircraft was flown daily at the ILA airshow fuelled entirely with algal grown octanes.

Having found pathways to such algal fuel the next, and formidable hurdle is to bring the unit volume costs down to levels that compete with fossil carbon releasing fuels. Boeing estimates that this could be as soon as 2015 in limited volumes. Airbus sees full conversion taking rather longer.

The processes used in these fuels are amenable to replacement gasoline, replacement diesel, and replacement heavy grades oils such as used in some power stations and in maritime commerce.

There is no need to buy new ships, or build new power houses to use such fuels. The key to their utilisation, the sooner the better, is that the sunk investment in existing machinery is not compromised.

Algal fuels will end the release of fossilised carbon, and the driver of the man made component of climate change. Other improvements in energy technology that do not use liquid fuels will likewise grow and supply a component of the total demand for energy in the coming decades.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 09/08/2010 11:46

Originally Posted By: Ben Sandilands
-Cosmic-

Lost in the shrillness something very interesting is happening in fuel technology. Without reference to the debate, economic necessity (supply and price) is giving the designer fuel revolution the impetus to completely replace fossil carbon releasing fuels within a lifetime, if not sooner.

In short, whether we like it or not, energy change is upon us. It isn't going to cause massive economic calamity, but it will allow around two billion people in the rising economic super states to take their place in the sun too.

It is happening because it needs to happen.


I understand what you are saying and was in no way actually dismissing or promoting anthropogenic global warming theory. I was simply making the point that, given the science is rather complex and that scientific facts cannot be sorted out in 5 minutes of data analysis, I do not think it would be reasonable to jump to conclusions or jump to any particular point of view without taking into consideration numerous other points of view. I welcome your feedback, and would agree in some sense with the points you put across, however my last comment was intended more to suggest we are only dealing with the tip of the iceberg. I, myself, have written in the order of 30 pages of notes, all referenced, on this theory, and still cannot discern with greater accuracy the degree of human influence, which is what my previous comment hinted. If anything, an improved understanding of climate and weather phenomenon is tending to be more the focus.
Posted by: adon

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 09/08/2010 12:32

I think that Algal oil would be a massive boost to Australia if we can fast track and sort out the production issues with growing it. Now there would be no guarantee that this type of fuel would be pushed under either scheme proposed to "save the planet" by either party. But at least with the Libs direst action thingy it would not be a tax on everything to fund research. If they all finally realise that this is not the problem they make it to be, we still have the option of using a fund to adopt better technologies and not have a bloody tax that will never do nothing but make middle men filthy rich.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 09/08/2010 12:39

A site on all the energy outputs and viability of all the so called "alternative energy" sources which I have bookmarked some time ago and occasionally delve into is "Sustainable Energy – without the hot air"

Some of the author's calculations and findings on the claims for some forms of the so called alternative energies are quite eye opening in that when the figures are done, there is simply no way that some of these alternative energy schemes will ever meet the claims of their proponents and supporters.

And Ben, I have followed the Algal energy since first coming across a US Dept of energy report back some 5 or 6 years ago.
If the contamination by other Algal spores can be sorted out in the very large areas of ponds required to get the necessary energy from the sun to enable sufficient production of the required mass of oil producing algae then it will be a real goer for mobile fuel replacement.
And we can continue with the heritage internal combustion engine for a long time ahead.

Again Australia with it's huge open sun lit desert areas is ideally placed to take advantage of Algal fuel production and that is one area where Australia should be putting a lot of research into instead of splashing it around a whole coterie of grant mining climate change academics who keep on publishing irrelevant and [censored] papers on entirely useless climate subjects of no relevancy or use and which will make absolutely no difference in the long term.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 09/08/2010 12:50

Originally Posted By: Ben Sandilands

Algal fuels will end the release of fossilised carbon, and the driver of the man made component of climate change. Other improvements in energy technology that do not use liquid fuels will likewise grow and supply a component of the total demand for energy in the coming decades.


It will help reduce our reliance on oil, but not necessarily coal. But I suppose algal fuel fired power stations would be another alternative with wind, solar and nuclear. I get the feeling algal fuel is driven by the requirements of aviation to have the lightest possible energy source and am not sure whether algal fuel will be competitive with other energy sources where the weight of the enegy source is not such a critical issue?
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 09/08/2010 13:01

From pages 283; Solar II > in the above "Sustainable Energy- without the hot air"

Quote:
[ page 288. notes. ]
In America, in ponds fed with concentrated CO2, algae can grow at 30 grams
per square metre per day, producing 0.01 litres of biodiesel per square metre
per day. Source: Putt (2007). This calculation has ignored the energy cost
of running the algae ponds and processing the algae into biodiesel. Putt
describes the energy balance of a proposed design for a 100-acre algae farm,
powered by methane from an animal litter digester. The farm described
would in fact produce less power than the methane power input. The 100-
acre farm would use 2600 kW of methane, which corresponds to an input
power density of 6.4 W/m2. To recap, the power density of the output, in the
form of biodiesel, would be just 4.2 W/m2. All proposals to make biofuels
should be approached with a critical eye!

page 286
A research study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory predicted
that genetically-modified green algae, covering an area of 11 hectares, could
produce 300 kg of hydrogen per day. Source: Amos (2004).
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 09/08/2010 15:45

Mike,

That aviation fuel requirements are indeed very fussy. Other uses less so, however the emphasis on algal pathways has to date in public been concerned with airliners. As the fuel needs become more broadly based but less fussy I think algal will run into strong competition from all sorts of bio diesel products, and on the fringes, where production makes $$$ sense, the likes of Jatropha oil. I think ROM is on the money too concerning the potential for solar energy capture in synthetic fuel processes in Australia, and the Energy Transformed Flagship at the CSIRO has with minuscule funds done some good ground work on this.

The work being done looks toward solar energy being used to make hydrogen which in turn enriches or improves natural gas or even a coal burning operation, which is not only a way to store and transmit by pipeline the solar energy dividend, but extend the life time of the coal or natural gas asset by combining it in a fuel that is significantly cleaner per unit of energy produced.

There are other solar-input-pathways being considered too.

One thing that is noticeable about the quest for algal or hybrid energy innovations is how cagey everyone has become in the last two years. The R&D spending is surging and the level of disclosure or published results is plummeting, no doubt for commercial reasons. I think the study figures referenced by ROM will come under increased pressure for all the right reasons and in the right direction fairly soon.

All of which will 'save' the planet from a lot of unnecessary and costly political engineering, or cause it to be reversed. One hopes before real damage is done to our pockets.
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 12/08/2010 14:53

This link needs posting on one of the Climate Change threads. The program on Dick Smith's Population puzzle is on tonight at 8:30pm on the ABC followed by a Q/A on the subject, will be very interesting.
http://dicksmithpopulation.com/2010/08/11/letter-of-introduction-by-dick-smith/#more-690
Posted by: majorowe

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 12/08/2010 18:05

In response to the post #875433 by ROM and his link to the Nature article the following quote can be found at the bottom:

Quote:
Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. “Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.”


http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 12/08/2010 18:32

Interesting comment.
On the one hand Rex says there is a seriously bad problem.
On the other hand he says but we are only guessing there is problem as we can't even write it down!

It always amuses me that a large section of the the enviros, climate changers and global warmers [ and organics ] will accept without question any bad news, any doomsday predictions from the most stupid and far out and unqualified sources but give them a simple good news story from a respected source and Oh No, that has to be wrong as We have sinned against Gaia and all is lost unless we repent and pay a severe penance.

And if they can't find a doomsday problem to worry about, they will always invent one!
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 14/08/2010 09:29

Official: Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful

US Government admits satellite temperature readings “degraded.” All data taken offline in shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10 to 15 degrees too high.

The fault was first detected after a tip off from an anonymous member of the public to climate skeptic blog, Climate Change Fraud (view original article) (August 9, 2010).

Caught in the center of the controversy is the beleaguered taxpayer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA’s Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis has now confirmed that the fast spreading story on the respected climate skeptic blog is true.

However, NOAA spokesman, Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis declined to state how long the fault might have gone undetected. Nor would the shaken spokesman engage in speculation as to the damage done to the credibility of a decade’s worth of temperature readings taken from the problematic ‘NOAA-16’ satellite.

‘NOAA-16’ was launched in September 2000, and is currently operational, in a sun-synchronous orbit, 849 km above the Earth, orbiting every 102 minutes providing automated data feed of surface temperatures which are fed into climate computer models.

http://climatechangefraud.com/climate-re...g-data-doubtful
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 14/08/2010 10:50

Simonsturf, is there any problems with this site?. It is still up and running. I have noticed some oddities in the surface temps, currently the surface temps have been showing negative which is wrong of course. But I think there must be some software bug they should fix. Do you know of any evidence of there being errors in the 600mb temps?

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 14/08/2010 12:32

Some strange things are starting to happen in the official government American climate and satellite agencies reporting network and internet access points.
On WUWT for instance over the last couple of weeks there have been an increasing number of commenters asking if and why some sites are apparently down for periods and why are some official reporting sites now off line or no longer updating regularly or why have older archived images just disappeared.

The satellite problems of faulty temperature readings which have not been tested for quality control and over which apparently no quality checks of any type were routinely made despite so much importance being placed on their results.
Now it seems that apparently grossly false and exaggerated temperatures were routinely incorporated in the temperature series as Simmo posted on above, and this will in the near future cause a huge ruckus amongst the climate cognoscenti

I suspect that there will be a very big attempt to circle the wagons on this but like Climategate, the genie is now out of the bottle and won't be put back in.
And trust in the official claims of rising global temperatures and a warming earth will be further eroded.

The MSM will face a further fall in the public's trust as it has just swallowed wholesale and without any real checking or without any applied skepticism to the accuracy of the press releases from the AGW advocates in the official climate research agencies.
A report on this particular major fault in satellite temperature data has yet to be seen in the MSM let alone a critical analysis from the MSM on just what it means for the global temperature data analysis and results.
A lack of interest by the MSM that is even more astonishing considering the impact that a government imposed social revolution based on this type of now known to be arguably totally corrupted data supporting a supposedly warming atmosphere will have on our society.

The MSM are increasingly seen as failing completely the role they have promoted for themselves over the decades as the guardian's of the public truth and instead are just becoming the propaganda mouthpieces of various advocacy and special interest groups.
As a consequence they are now suffering the severe economic consequences of an increasing loss of public trust.

It is the leakers and the ability of the increasingly widely led blogs to publicise the errors and scams revealed by those same leakers as we see in this, just another instance, that are showing up in this whole climate warming debacle which in turn is forcing official organisations to admit that they are either incompetent, poorly administrated or are involved in substantial manipulation of the data to achieve a preordained result in line with their main leadership's AGW advocacy beliefs.

And for how Americans now regard their MSM this latest Pew Poll gives a good indication and I think this poll also possibly reflects Australian's views on their own MSM.
Posted by: majorowe

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 15/08/2010 00:04

Looks completely overblown - I'd be surprised if this leads to anything.The headline "US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal - NOAA Discraced" is laughable.

Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/08/2010 13:30

Climate change alarmists ignore scientific methods

Most alarmists refuse to accept the evidence disproving AGW. True believers in global warming are loathe to admit how little control we have over nature. That's why AGW is frequently referred to as a religion with them.
But global warming is not something that you have to take on faith. It is your prerogative to reject what has been learned about climate change over several centuries and to embrace the unproven hypothesis of humans being responsible for global temperature changes.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7153663.html
Posted by: Big_Pete

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/08/2010 13:37

here's some more links to climate change and global warming.
Posted by: Big_Pete

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/08/2010 13:38

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/effects-consequences-global-warming.html
Posted by: Big_Pete

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/08/2010 13:38

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-causes-global-warming.html
Posted by: Big_Pete

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/08/2010 13:38

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/global-warming.html
Posted by: Big_Pete

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/08/2010 13:39

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/ways-to-prevent-global-warming.html
Posted by: Big_Pete

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/08/2010 13:39

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/how-to-stop-global-warming.html
Posted by: Big_Pete

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/08/2010 13:40

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/global-warming-solutions.html
Posted by: Big_Pete

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/08/2010 13:51

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/global-warming-solutions.html

There's the rest of them here
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 03/09/2010 14:32

Further major discrepancies are now appearing in the calculations on just how much CO2 is actually emitted by human activities and by implication the measurement of any CO2 emissions are going to be inaccurate and obviously any imposed taxes on some companies will be very unjust and will be extremely onerous and could put them out of business if the CO2 emissions as suggested in this PDF are as inaccurate as the paper suggests.

From "CO2 scorecard" the Executive Summary for ; CO2 Discrepancies between Top Data Reporters Create a Quandary for Policy Analysis.

Quote:
A review by the CO2Scorecard Group has revealed substantial discrepancies between the top publicly available global databases of CO2 emissions.
Differing methodologies and the use of back‐end data have produced data sets with wildly divergent CO2 emissions estimates for monitored countries.
These discrepancies are so great that they dwarf the annual reduction targets generally proposed under cap‐and‐trade programs, the Kyoto protocol and negotiations surrounding the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Our findings are based on the analysis of 2009 CO2 emission estimates reported by BP and PBL‐Netherlands.
If some of the best available data sources are so discrepant with each other, it creates a real dilemma for policy analysis and a problem for managing human‐induced climate change.
With inadequately standardized methods for monitoring CO2 emissions, there is no way to verify the year‐over‐year impact of emissions mitigation programs at the national level.
Many governments could go years claiming emissions reductions, merely by changing methodologies for measurement.
Greater attention, standardization, empirical testing and third party audit of estimation methodologies is necessary to create a CO2 emissions reporting infrastructure that is able to support verification of impacts from efforts to reduce overall CO2 emissions at the national and global level.



Gillard and the greens should have a hard look at this paper if they get to power.

There is a 754 million tonnes difference in estimated USA CO2 emissions for 2006 from different CO2 data calculating organisations and that makes a huge difference to any taxes, output figures and calculations on CO2 emissions.
As I have suggested before and now verified by this paper, we don't even accurately know the amount of anthropgenic CO2 emitted let alone know all the global CO2 sinks or where that CO2 goes too.
The sinks for around half of the claimed CO2 emitted by mankind are still unknown despite the usual fudging veneer of those who try to con the populace into believing that all their data and conclusions are infallible.
Now it seems they don't even accurately know just how much CO2 is actually being emitted and by inference they do not know how much of the total CO2 is actually due to naturally emitting sources.
So we are now likely to get taxed on CO2 that is not from human activities but from natural sources as well.

But Gillard and the greens are far too arrogant and fixated to take any notice of this report and will just go on in their ideologically fixated path which could have some disastrous consequences for Australia's economic and social future.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/09/2010 09:07

I think the criticisms of carbon measures in this paper are valid.

They are also a good example of how the effort by some to include all carbon outputs for essentially political purposes can backfire on those responsible for this.

The more direct proxy for carbon emissions of concern would be total quantities of fossil carbon releasing fuels that are produced or consumed each year. Both values would be fairly close. Unfortunately I seriously doubt that the use of simpler yet highly significant metrics appeals to the stakeholders in at either extreme of this discussion.

Carbon that comes from the natural cycles, that is, from the air for example, and goes back into the air after its energy is released or 'packaged' by photosynthesis should never be part of the equation, but too many of the pro AGW extremists want to throw around big numbers to influence a populist debate that rarely engages the actual science. They do themselves an immense disservice, which is why I think ROM is right to draw attention to this paper.

PS Labor is as captive to the coal lobby as the Coalition.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/09/2010 10:01

The paper is not about the science of climate change, but about the economic/political difficulties in measuring the Co2 emmitted by specific nations. It is the same problem as accurately measuring individual's incomes for the purposes of assessing income tax....
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/09/2010 12:07

I agree with that Mike. But it generates doubt about the magnitude of the problem, and that problem is the release of fossil carbon in excess of the capacity of the natural systems to accommodate it.

One metric that shows no cyclical variation is the increase in concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Another is the liberation of fossil sourced carbon through coal and oil production and consumption. This consumption may well fall in the US economy in the current economic situation, but that feedback is overwhelmed by the growth in energy consumption in China and India.
Posted by: Rain Shadow (Fossy)

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 05/09/2010 14:04

Promoting global warming.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 10/10/2010 15:31

According to Milankovitch Theory (and Equations), and in practice, it appears that there is somewhat greater uncertainty surrounding the effects of top-of-the-atmosphere insolation on atmospheric dynamics than there is concerning the influences of this energy upon the atmosphere once it is incorporated within the atmospheric circulation. In other words, the dynamics of the atmosphere, especially in relation to the weather, are heavily influenced by the behaviour of the gases in this layer, and to a lesser extent insolation. With emphasis on the greenhouse effect which provides a habitable environment, the properties of surface features, humidity of the air and CO2 cannot be underestimated. This is not so much a matter of convincing people as it is a matter of plain scientific evidence. Nor it is a matter to be dismissed on the basis of misinformation about how the atmosphere works. I do not believe it is difficult to understand, and I would think it is simple enough, conspiracy theories and other differences of opinions notwithstanding.

I am not advocating a particular point of view, what I’m saying is evidence and it’s analysis comes before opinion.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 10/10/2010 17:06

It is the positive feedbacks overwhelming the negative feedbacks, that is not a matter of scientific evidence, but of theory, modelling and conjecture...that is the crux of the AGW matter...it is unproven, and likely does not exist in reality.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 10/10/2010 17:29

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
It is the positive feedbacks overwhelming the negative feedbacks, that is not a matter of scientific evidence, but of theory, modelling and conjecture...that is the crux of the AGW matter...it is unproven, and likely does not exist in reality.

I do not think of it in terms of one thing overwhelming another, but rather one thing contributing to another. Without positive feedbacks, there would not be negative feedbacks, and vice versa. That is pretty clear. What is less understood is the degree of contribution.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 10/10/2010 19:01

Agreed!
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 12/10/2010 07:12

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/new-method-predicts-a-hotter-and-drier-state/15176
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 12/10/2010 07:16

Ocean currents offer insight into climate change

Marine researchers say their study of ocean currents is shedding new light on global climate change.

Oceanographer Andrew Hogg from the Australian National University in Canberra is studying ocean eddies.

Ocean eddies look like ringlets on the water's surface and are considered ubiquitous.

They may cover between 50 to 100 kilometres of sea and can exist for more than six months in particular parts of the ocean.

"In climate we are only interested in the large scales as a result of all the climate processes. We are interested in how much heat gets taken around the globe. That's what we really care about," Dr Hogg said.

"What I am saying is that these very small scale features are playing a key dynamical role in the ocean."

Dr Hogg says eddies in the southern ocean are the only means by which heat is transported from the equator to the south pole.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/09/3033807.htm
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 12/10/2010 10:17

"In an Australian first, scientists are using global climate modelling to predict climate change in 10 square kilometre blocks throughout Tasmania."
re simmo url

Why on earth would you try to forecast over a 10km square grid, when the models have not even a hope of forecasting the whole global area climate trends!!!
Posted by: majorowe

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 12/10/2010 22:21

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
"In an Australian first, scientists are using global climate modelling to predict climate change in 10 square kilometre blocks throughout Tasmania."
re simmo url

Why on earth would you try to forecast over a 10km square grid, when the models have not even a hope of forecasting the whole global area climate trends!!!


Quote:
"Our goal is to find out more about the small scales and feed that into the models."
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 12/10/2010 23:29

The following is from Roger Pielke Sr blog "Climate Science"

When Is A Model a Good Model?

The comments in the quote below were written by Kevin Trenberth in 2007 [an IPCC WG1 author] who is also a member of the CRU's "hockey stick" Team and as such, one of the foundation members of the IPCC's great global warming scam.

Trenberth is also the author of the rather well known quote from the climategate E-mail 1255352257.txt Mon 12th Oct 2009

Quote:
" The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is atravesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."


Below is Kevin Trenberth's, the CRU insider insider's take on the global climate models.
These are the same models which those of us who can think for themselves and who don't just blindly and unquestionably follow the latest and greatest very questionable science scam without having a long and close look at the claims and the underlying science have insultingly been called deniers on this forum.
And called Deniers based on some psychobabble from a fanatical warmista because we dare to question the assumptions that rise from these IPCC models and simply don't believe in the the ideology or the prophesies of supposed disastrous consequences if we DON'T ACT NOW on reducing that essential to life and minor green house gas, CO2.
The entire range of climate warming beliefs and ideology are based entirely on the projections of those same models that Trenberth so vocally disparages in the following article taken from Roger Pielke Sr's blog.

Roiger Pielke Sr;

A model is a good model if it:

Is elegant
Contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements
Agrees with and explains all existing observations
Makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.

With respect to the mult-decadal global climate models, it is clear they fail these requirements to be a “good model”. As candidly summarized, for example, by Kevin Trenberth in 2007 [an IPCC WG1 author] [highlighting added]

Quote:
…there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today’s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.

The current projection method works to the extent it does because it utilizes differences from one time to another and the main model bias and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes linearity. It works for global forced variations, but it can not work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle. For instance, if the current state is one of drought then it is unlikely to get drier, but unrealistic model states and model biases can easily violate such constraints and project drier conditions. Of course one can initialize a climate model, but a biased model will immediately drift back to the model climate and the predicted trends will then be wrong. Therefore the problem of overcoming this shortcoming, and facing up to initializing climate models means not only obtaining sufficient reliable observations of all aspects of the climate system, but also overcoming model biases. So this is a major challenge.”


The obvious answer to the questions posed regarding a “good model” in the Hawking and Mlodinow 2010 book is that the models used in the 2007 IPCC report are not “good models” as they fail all four of the requirements.

This failure does not mean we should not be concerned about the human addition of greenhouse gases (or other human and natural climate forcings), but it should cause policymakers and funders of climate model researchers to realize that they have been oversold on the scientific rigor of the IPCC models. The funding of model predictions decades into the future using these tools is not money well spent.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 12/10/2010 23:54

And some more light reading on climate models and climate model projections or more accurately the total failure of climate models to make any sort of realistic projections for the future global climate can be found at Doug Hoffman's blog;

The Resilient Earth; Estimated CO2 Warming Cut By 65%

And "The Chiefio", E.M. Smith takes a calculator to the Wood, the Trees and CO2 with some very interesting conclusions.
Conclusions that the rising CO2 levels may have very little to do with the greater amount of so called fossil fuels being used by mankind.

Got Wood?
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/10/2010 10:50

i have noticed how over the past 6 months clmate change that was global warming has now shifted to climate variability! As it becomes less and less GW and Australia's climate and weather return to "normaility", the AGW need to change their titles to siut their agenda. Warming is failing, so we go for climate change, things are returning to normal so we will go for climate variability instead as the main focus.
Well, climate has been variable since the world was created, and will continue to be so, the current variabilty is what has always happened and always will!
Posted by: Arnost

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/10/2010 10:56

You're so behind the times Ian... wink

It's not Climate Change or Variability... it's Climate Disruption!
Posted by: Keith

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/10/2010 11:24

Stability-disadvantaged atmospheric behaviour.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 13/10/2010 12:19

LOL - you could have a lot of fun with this!
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 19/10/2010 13:14

Ocean Heat Content is now being put forward by climate scientists such as Roger Pielke Sr as a far more accurate measure of the global temperatures than the very corrupted and very, very suspect Global Historical Climate Network data [ GHCN ] which only measures land temperatures and then with only some very sparsely spaced and very ordinary weather recording stations around the globe. [ Oceans account for 3/4's of the Earth's surface area of 510,066,000 sq kilometres.]

WUWT has a guest post by Bob Tisdale of the Climate Observations blog, on the changes to the Ocean Heat Content made by the NOAA's National Ocean Data Center [ NODC ] and with animations of the graphs to easily show the changes.

It appears that the calculated Ocean Heat content has been revised downwards quite significantly which has very large implications for the CO2 induced global warming claims.
The amount of supposed heat energy involved in these seemingly small changes is immense.
The changes are the result of a rethink and an upgrading of the data that has biases in it due to calibration problems in some of the older XBT systems and in some of the early ARGO floats.
Another twist and turn in the ongoing saga of claimed global warming!
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 23/10/2010 09:55

Back on the Climate models again!
And the reasons for doing so are that ALL of the so called forecasts of the "predicted" climate related "disasters" so beloved of the Warmista Doomsters are a direct and usually very exaggerated outcome from the Climate Warming / Climate Change projections of the Climate models.
There is NO observational evidence of any onset of any of these "disasters".
Even less so anything that can definitively be pinned on Anthropogenic,; ie man made causes as against explanations using nothing more than just natural and normal changes and cycles in the long term global atmosphere and oceans.

And we simply do not understand even partially all of those interacting and interlocking aspects of the Global climate let alone being able to predict the climate future.
And we are seeing more and more challenges to the supposed and claimed by their developers, infallibility and accuracy of the climate models from within the climate research community itself.

All of which leaves the Climate doomsters and extremist climate activists very exposed in their claims as the predictions of those increasingly discredited infallibility of the climate forecasting models are the very foundation for their claims.
So they are relying more and more on extremist statements and highly emotional claims, nearly all without any serious foundation, so they can try and force their extremist ideology onto the global community at large.

Modeling of the climate like any modeling in any discipline can be and is a very useful tool to try and understand what is actually happening in the item under study.
But to use these climate models that are totally unverifiable to predict a climatically disastrous future without ANY hard evidence that these "disasters" are even possible or likely and to then try and change the entire structure of our society based on nothing more than the output of these same often dodgy computer programs and models to which the inputs are also known to have been frequently manipulated and corrupted or are just plain unknown, is the height of stupidity.

From Roger Pielke Sr's blog; Climate Science

Quote:
Very Important New Paper “A Comparison Of Local And Aggregated Climate Model Outputs With Observed Data”

The abstract reads

We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe. We also spatially aggregate model output and observations over the contiguous USA using data from 70 stations, and we perform comparison at several temporal scales, including a climatic (30-year) scale. Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor.

The paper is examining the claim presented in the introduction of the paper that

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global circulation models (GCM) are able to “reproduce features of the past climates and climate changes” (Randall et al., 2007, p. 601).

What the authors of the Anagnostopoulos et al 2010 paper have found is that [highlight added]

It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale.

And;

Simply put, the current suite of climate models were not developed to provide the level of accuracy required for adaptation-type analysis. They were designed to provide a broad assessment of the response of the global climate system to greenhouse gas (GHG) forcings, and to serve as the basis for devising a set of GHG emissions policies to slow down the rate of growth of GHGs, and, by this, to mitigate global warming impacts. To expect more from these models is simply unrealistic at this time, as they do not even perform well as weather prediction models.


However, it should be understood that RCMs (regional climate models) operate under a set of boundary conditions set by whatever GCM is being used. Hence, if the GCM does not do an adequate job of reproducing the climate signal of a particular region, the RCM will simply mimic those inaccuracies and biases, and propagate the uncertainties even further, albeit at a regional scale. It is not clear how the coupling of a RCM to a flawed GCM can provide more refined insights, any more than can statistical downscaling.


I wonder how all those warmista doomsters out there would react if they got an analysis similar to the above, on the financial model's income predictions from the financial institutions where they have their money and superannuation invested?
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 25/10/2010 15:16

To be polite, it has be repeatedly emphasised that the evidence supports, to a reasonable degree, a potential warming of the lower troposphere due to the influence of carbon dioxide produced by humans. I'm not getting agitated or frustrated by anyone posting in these threads, it's simply a matter of rudimentary scientific facts and principals, and I find contradictions to these facts and principals bemusing to say the least. I hold rather strictly to these scientific values, and find it very difficult to believe any reasonable scientist would not follow them, unless their views are being taken out of context or misinterpreted is some way. You simply don't flout them.

I don’t really care for agendas, conspiracy theories or whatever, because they are scientifically irrelevant unless they can be proven without (a) being taken out of context or (b) misinterpreted…and following proper procedures and communications.

Further what reeks about agendas and conspiracy theories is the people complaining/gossiping don’t let other people know about the issue…it sounds like resentment (you win, I lose), or a power game (you lose, I win), rather than building constructive relationships.

What is really being lost is clarity, integrity, honesty, openness, etc. This is not so much finger-pointing as letting it be known.

Lastly, a belief is a belief is a belief…but it isn’t necessarily so.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 26/10/2010 08:23

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/25/se...ity/#more-26956
interesting article on climate sensitivity and the CO2 models
Posted by: Arnost

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 26/10/2010 09:10

Quote:
that the evidence supports, to a reasonable degree, a potential warming of the lower troposphere due to the influence of carbon dioxide


... is not something that is denied. The issue is of course to what degree, i.e. what is the sensitivity and what are the feedbacks.
Posted by: Locke

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 26/10/2010 11:43

Originally Posted By: -Cosmic-
.....

Further what reeks about agendas and conspiracy theories is the people complaining/gossiping don’t let other people know about the issue…it sounds like resentment (you win, I lose), or a power game (you lose, I win), rather than building constructive relationships.

What is really being lost is clarity, integrity, honesty, openness, etc. This is not so much finger-pointing as letting it be known.

Lastly, a belief is a belief is a belief…but it isn’t necessarily so.


Behaviour breeds conspiracy perceptions Cosmic. If people had reason to trust their governments and corporations then conspiracy theories would not take hold. As Mark Twain once said "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session".

When clarity, integrity, honesty and openess are lacking then people will start to become suspicious and begin to form beliefs about the motives of those trying to advocate a specific course of action, particularly one which is going to have a phenomally high cost whilst making a group of people very rich in the process.

And this is where the AGW movement finds itself today and why people are becoming increasingly sceptical about the motives and agendas of those spouting climate change disruption doomsday scenarios.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 26/10/2010 17:14

Originally Posted By: Locke
When clarity, integrity, honesty and openess are lacking then people will start to become suspicious and begin to form beliefs about the motives of those trying to advocate a specific course of action, particularly one which is going to have a phenomally high cost whilst making a group of people very rich in the process.

And this is where the AGW movement finds itself today and why people are becoming increasingly sceptical about the motives and agendas of those spouting climate change disruption doomsday scenarios.

Bold Added: i.e. non-scientific.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/10/2010 12:19

Another of the unknown "unknown's" being slowly turned into a known "unknown" of potential and significant influence on the global climate.

From Roger Pielke Sr's Climate Science; An ECMWF New Report On Surface Wind Trends
And the part that astonished me after all the many years of the eco's over the top propoganda to the contrary! [ my bolding ]
Quote:
This study also attempts an explanation of the reasons for this decrease. Using a variety of data (datasets from reanalyses carried out by ECMWF or other smaller scale simulations, satellite and radiosonde observations), the authors show that this decrease in surface wind speed can be largely explained by an increase in vegetation and, to a smaller extent, by changes in the general atmospheric circulation over the past few decades.

The shibboleths of the AGW climate cabal continue to fall like skittles.

And from the ECMWF; http://www.ecmwf.int/publications/cms/get/ecmwfnews/1287402431772


Posted by: Locke

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/10/2010 12:37

Originally Posted By: -Cosmic-
Originally Posted By: Locke
When clarity, integrity, honesty and openess are lacking then people will start to become suspicious and begin to form beliefs about the motives of those trying to advocate a specific course of action, particularly one which is going to have a phenomally high cost whilst making a group of people very rich in the process.

And this is where the AGW movement finds itself today and why people are becoming increasingly sceptical about the motives and agendas of those spouting climate change disruption doomsday scenarios.

Bold Added: i.e. non-scientific.


And your point is? Here's a definition of "movement" from dictionary.com.

"a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal"

I would say AGW proponents could accurately be classified as a movement. To a certain extent your right though. The AGW movement is non-scientific but unfortunately one it's key goals is to persuade everyone that there is a scientific consensus. How does that work exactly?

This is perhaps why there is such mistrust of the climate science community. Because it has been so badly hijacked by people who are interested only in the goal and not the science. Clarity, openess, integrity and honesty have been the casualties.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/10/2010 17:30

...Probably due to the fact I'm coming from a different perspective smile...I'm not really that interested in making a point, I simply do not view the AGW idea as something to be won or lost.
Posted by: Locke

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 27/10/2010 18:11

Likewise Cosmic. Rather I would like to gain a greater understanding of all the factors that impact our climate.

Fate has dictated that I didn't go to university to become a climate scientist but that shouldnt preclude me from asking questions to gain a greater understanding of something I am still very interested in.

This is where I get continually frustrated by the seige mentaility of so many within the climate science community who actions would seem to indicate they think climate science is sacred knowlege, understandable only by those within the inner circle.

Even this might be semi-tolerable except every idea or theory seems to be put through the "CO2 is the main climate forcing mechanism" filter and anything that falls outside this is given a cursory glance and then dismissed.

It might help climate scientists to feel smug and arrogant inside their sheltered cliques but it certainly doesn't help build the trust and understanding of anyone else who seeks to gain a greater knowlege.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/10/2010 08:00

Locke,

My contacts in scientific circles include many who despise the 'filtering' you refer to. It is obvious and laboured and deserves all the criticism is gets, and it is high time the media in general became more questioning.

Nevertheless, this same set of contacts doesn't include anyone who doubts the radiation absorbing or deflecting characteristics of green house gases, both natural, and the synthetics that have never figured in the natural history of the planet.

Nor do they misunderstand the difference between natural carbon cycles in which photosynthesis and other processes borrow carbon out of the natural environment, combine it with sunlight or other biological or chemical reactions, derive energy or plant or tissue growth from this process and then put it back into the 'carbon neutral' cycle to complete the recycling.

This is where the media (ahem!) also fail, because it never makes the differential clear. The release of fossil carbon doesn't take the carbon out of the atmosphere, burn it, and then put it back into the air, it just liberates it into the air with no compensatory process.

Over time, this causes significant accumulation in the air, and the seas and soils, and while we may well harbour strong differences of opinion as to how this plays out in the real world, it definitely has the capacity to disrupt, for better or worse, the natural cycles.

By dampening or even stopping the industrial over burden we return the world to one in which nature is neither assisted nor retarded by unnatural contaminants (synthetics) or unnatural cycles (rapid persistent fossil carbon liberation). These are not processes replicated by strato volcanoes or tectonic related events, but things we are doing.

It may be the sample is too small, but among those people in the actual field here and abroad that I have met, or continue to meet (most of them through mountaineering) or read, I do not find a single voice that says accelerated carbon is good.

They all dislike strongly what their research tells them is afoot. Among the reasons for this dislike is the well grounded fear of atmospheric scientists that higher carbon dioxide levels may in due course inhibit the water vapour carrying capacity of the atmosphere, and that the loss of snow pack moderated water for agriculture can have dire consequences for agriculture on a widely distributed scale, meaning that the capacity of extra carbon to add to plant mass is useless if there is no water left for irrigation.

I think the discussion here is correct in so far as it targets the peripheral carpetbaggers, although even then, it tends to degrade into global conspiracy theories and calls for attacks on the actual science, which sort of reminds me of book burning, or cultural warfare based on grotesque bulk labelling of people.

The much more difficult issue is not what we like or dislike, but what the much maligned but what the usually superficially reported research projects are doing.

There is a lot of yearning here, as there is among the scientists, to find something, anything, that can convince us that these issues with climate change aren't happening.

Unfortunately they are, but fortunately, they are often exaggerated for unscientific purposes.
Posted by: Locke

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/10/2010 10:23

I understand what your saying Ben. However, I don't think you'll find too much disagreement amongst serious sceptics that CO2 (or other GHG's) can trap additional heat/energy in the atmosphere.

The broader ramifications that arise from reducing the level of CO2 that humans emit are incredibly serious and have the potential to result in a negative impact on human existence that far outweighs any current measurable impact from those CO2 emissions.

We currently have over 6 billion people on this planet many of whom are reliant upon a cheap source of energy for their existence. You and I are probably able to weather the impact of new costs and taxes that will arise should we undertake a serious attempt to rein back our use of fossil fuels. For each one of us though there are many others who are not so fortunate. In reality it is these people who we are realy asking to bear the cost.

My concern is that a broader range of research in climate science is continually being stymied by the level of political and economic pressure to focus purely on what CO2 is doing but more importantly to reward those who find CO2 to be king amongst climate forcing mechanisms. This is hindering efforts to identify whether the threat is severe enough or real enough to balance out the damage likely to be caused by they type of action being proposed to reduce CO2 levels in our atmosphere.

The word "denialism" is continually bandied about, but the true denialism comes from those who would deny that their is not a concerted effort amongst politicians, businessmen and climate scientists with vested interests to prevent a broader scope of research into climate issues.

Billions if not trillions of dollars in investment ride on the back of the results of climate science research. It would be an incredibly naive person to think this does not come into play when it comes to the question of how, where and why this research is being conducted.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/10/2010 10:41

The dimension in research that I try to cover in other places, including Plane Talking, is that of risk capital seeking carbon neutral liquid fuels. This is not actually dependant on any climate change research, helpful or unhelpful though that research may prove to be. It is driven by the rewards that will come with economic alternatives to fossil carbon liberating fuel, again, not necessarily with any changes in tax policies.

My view is that much of the resistance to the notion of AGW from the fossil fuel industry is more about an attempt to control the speed of change, and if possible, own the new technology, than anything else.
Posted by: Locke

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/10/2010 13:24

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me Ben :-P
Posted by: __PG__

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/10/2010 14:06

Ever wanted to know what a computer climate model can actually do? (as opposed to what you read about on a blog?)

Evaluation of the Hadley GEM2 model - November 2008

Basically its a 47 pages report of error analysis and verification statistics.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/10/2010 16:37

After a quick scan I see complex after complex problems to solve in the model...how one can solve all them correctly is beyond me, so how can one have much faith at all in the results is beyond me also...But, even worse I see no reference to the most important effects ie solar effects at all!(unless I missed it). How one can leave the most important factor out of the model is beyond me!
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/10/2010 16:46

Dr. Horst Borchert, the Director of the Department of Physics of the Johannes-Gutenberg Institute, Mainz, Germany, presented a paper, Using Satellite Measurements to study the Influence of Sun Activity on Terrestrial Weather at the Space Weather Workshop held in Boulder, Colorado earlier this year. Dr. Borchert finds from satellite measurements that global warming between about 1980 to 2008 was "not anthropogenic but caused by natural activities of the Sun’s surface." He relates changes of the solar magnetic field to cosmic rays and cloud formation (the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al) and to effects on the North Atlantic Oscillation, which affects weather phenomena around the globe.

Using Satellite Measurements to study the Influence of Sun Activity on Terrestrial Weather

Abstract: The time rows of Terrestrial Climate Components (TCC) since the Eighties have shown some strong Influences by Extraterrestrial Components with the beginning of the 22. Sunspot period. Therefore the increase of ground near temperature on earth and oceans (2 –3 m above ground), called Global Temperature, during the warming period between about 1980 and 2008 seems to be not anthropogenic but caused by natural activities of Sun’s surface.

Some Extraterrestrial Components (EC) can be destined by measurements on the earth’s surface directly or indirectly: (a) The Reduction of Cosmic Rays by the magnetic fields of the sun-winds (Forbush-Reduction) by measuring the neutrons, which are secondary particles (Höhenstrahlung) of Cosmic Rays, and (b) the influence of the sun-winds on earths weather system by calculating the Sun-Wind-Index (SWI) from the difference of magnetic field in antipodal Stations.
http://sc25.com/?id=255
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/10/physicist-global-warming-1980-2008.html
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/10/2010 17:33

Low grade blog posts such "How Do Climate Models Work? from Roy W Spencer's blog.
Roy W Spencer of course is the head of NASA's AMSRE, AQUA satellite based global temperature data organisation. but I guess that doesn't count.

And posts such as this one "What can we learn from climate models?" by Judith Curry, one of your very own top warmista climate scientists PG or at least she was until she started to talk, just talk mind you, to the Skeptics and the "Deniers" and so is now hated even more as an apostate, one of those who turn their backs on the cult, than any of the skeptics and deniers by those of your way out there climate persuasion, PG.

Plus a few other odd low grade climate science blogs like Roger Pielke Sr and Jr's and the hated Steve McIntyre' and his Climate Audit blog, you know the guy that really caught your lot right out by using little more that good science, his undoubted integrity and intellect as it should be used and continues right on doing so.

Of course you may have to find the validation and verification on the other 22 climate models that the IPCC modelers use plus a large number of other climate models who also suffer from the lack of serious validation or verification.

[sarc] But none of that counts of course unless it is from a foaming at the mouth warmista blog, the only reliable blogs on this planet that are capable of forecasting a hundred years ahead how a climate disaster is going to overtake the planet unless we do something NOW!
Like deliberately destroying our entire society and social, financial and industrial base entirely on the basis of the projections from a few very crude computer models using mostly unproven assumptions in predicting a couple of degrees rise in global temperatures by about a hundred years on and into the [ completely unknown and unforecastable ] future.
And all this unless we reduce a completely natural, absolutely essential to all life, minor green house gas CO2 to levels that can barely sustain plant life.[/sarc]

Plants literally choke to death from the lack of CO2 [ like humans from the lack of O2 ] below about 180 > 200 PPM if you did not know that and reducing CO2 will damage and potentially destroy an immense amount of biodiversity of all types right across the planet if your mob ever got it's way PG.

To get some idea of the type of mentality that pervades some of the highest on the totem pole activists climate scientists which are those right in the middle of the Climategate e- mail scandal, read the warmist leaning environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr's latest blog post.

Daniel Greenberg Meets the Climate Scientists
It ain't pleasant and they are not pleasant people!
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/10/2010 21:03

Freeman Dyson [ Home page ]
One of the towering figures of science in the 20th century;

Quote:

“My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do.

The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.”
Posted by: majorowe

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 28/10/2010 21:21

Originally Posted By: ROM
Freeman Dyson [ Home page ]
One of the towering figures of science in the 20th century;

Quote:

“My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do.

The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.”



Born 1923. His quote is mostly rhetroic, the last two sentences don't even make sense.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/10/2010 01:34

Quote:
Ever wanted to know what a computer climate model can actually do?


Rhetorical question... Yes, it's something that preoccupies me a bit... LOL!

The test of any model is its skill at predicting - full stop. It does not matter how well it hindcasts, or how much effort was put into it, or what consensus there exists about its utility, if it can not accurately predict then, well, it's doodoo.

I am closely following another Hadley model. It was released a couple of years ago to triumphant fanfare [see here for example] and its outputs were included in glossy climate porn brochures such as this. The model is apparently sensitive enough to accurately predict accurately on the decadal timeframe.

Here's a link to the paper: linky

In it (in the brochure and paper), there is a schematic projecting future temps. There is also the following:
Quote:
We are now using the system to predict changes out to 2014. By the end of this period,the global average temperature is expected to have risen by around 0.3° C compared to 2004, and half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than the current hot year 1998.


I have taken this schematic and overlayed the temps to end of 2009 (from here)



As you can see the last two years were just on or below the 90% confidence interval. That already stretches the model skill.

Hadley has also made the testable call that half the years from now on will be hotter than 1998. I reckon 2010 will be close - but now it's looking less and less so - and with a major Nina in the offing - 2011 has no chance. The two crosses are where I expect 2010 and 2011 to end up. I would threfore strongly opine that the temps are not to meet the prediction. And in fact I would not be surprised if most of them will be below the 90% confidence interval... and follow about where the middle years of the last decade were.

And oh yes - we have not had any major eruptions of the class of El Chichon and Pinatubo.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/10/2010 08:20

ROM,

Whatever the impact on national economies from spending on climate change or imposing all sorts of taxes, I don't think we have any way of detecting its magnitude compared to the disaster in the banking sector and the mortgage revelations which curently fill the US media.

In general, total spending on science research by western governments has stagnated for the past decade, meaning that what is spent on climate related matters is taken from other allocations, often space programs, which also helps explain why the proponents of said programs spend a lot of time on rhetoric that tries to link their project to climate research.

This deserves criticism, and it certainly gets it from the contra-warmistas.

It is a bit like trying to raise money for a Mars project that doesn't invoke the search for water and signs of past or present life forms. It all amounts to campaigning for money on the basis that the recipients will then give the sponsoring department or government the answers they want.

It is unscientific. This is where a lot of the dishonesty lies in the selling of climate change, however I'm firmly of the view that the research is dealing with issues of real concern, and should be reported and funded with more candour and honesty and less hoop-la.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/10/2010 10:05

Originally Posted By: Arnost
[Quote]
As you can see the last two years were just on or below the 90% confidence interval. That already stretches the model skill.


The model you presented claims a warming rate of 0.3 deg/decade. I believe the average rate for models used by IPCC is 0.18 deg/decade. The temperature series you compare to has been cooler in recent years than all other major temperature series. So although comparing Hadley model to a Hadley temp series does of course make good sense, it should be noted that you are comparing a warmer model with a cooler temperature series, and finding that the model skill is only 'stretched'.

An alternate comparison of model vs actual with one of the warmer series shows this:



Some have noted that the recent El Nino has only just gone past the average model, when you would expect it to go significantly past the average. However note that the same thing happened in 03 and 96, and the 06/07 el nino didn't even make the average at all.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/page/2/
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/10/2010 11:18

As I keep saying, boringly I guess, take out the El Ninos and volcanic and temp peak is about 2002 and temp is now falling, as per solar with lag-ocean.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/10/2010 11:25

Ben, except for trying to sort out what exactly is meant in your first para and that is my problem and not your fault, if I read you right I completely agree with you, including if I have it right, the first para.

Since the start of the industrial revolution our global civilisation's continuous advancement up the ladder of civilisation has come through a steady shift from just empirical based knowledge at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution through to an ongoing and constantly improving understanding of the most basic physical laws of the universe.

Our civilisation's drive to understand those laws and all the immense and never to be fully understood and ultimately unknoweable complexity that those basic laws encompass is called "Science".

And the practitioners of that Science, the Scientists are merely a microcosm of our whole society
They have all the foibles and faults and strengths that the rest of us have.
They are no smarter nor more honest nor have greater integrity than the rest of us.
They are merely the practitioners of a seeking for knowledge with the same level of skills that a lawyer, journalist, lathe operator, modeler, financial consultant and farmer and all those other citizens that make up our complex society, each of whom are just as skilled in their own particular fields as are Scientists in theirs.

Unfortunately since WW2 we have increasingly placed scientists on a high pedestal where some, but not all of those same scientists are now adopting an attitude of arrogance where from their rarely challenged position on that high public pedestal, they have come to believe that they are beyond the normal laws and mores of ordinary men and cannot be challenged for what they are doing or how they are doing it.
And that any challenges to their conclusions and proclamations will not be tolerated and any such challengers must be eliminated or neutered so as the challengers will never again be able to create another challenge that might result in forced climb down from that high public pedestal for their version of science.

And this is now the case in many science disciplines with Climate Science being the most evident example of this unfortunate and recent creation of our society.

We as a civilisation are now paying a high price for placing science and scientists on that high pedestal and giving them immense and unbounded authority without sufficient moral checks, balances or controls and until Science and Scientists again adopt a humble attitude, we and our civilisation will continue to have conflict and strife arising from science created conflicts.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/10/2010 11:46

Mike

You should use HadCRUT because that is what it was trained on, and the other reason to use Hadley is of course that it is the preferred IPCC metric…

Regardless – the point I was trying to make is: that the only way to truly verify a models skill is to test its predictions.

And I used this model (which was touted a couple of years back as the latest and greatest, capable of resolution on the middle term - i.e. next ten years - and it also accounted for ENSO) as it made a realistically testable prediction – and not only of general trend, but of a specific where “at least half the years between 2009 and 2014 will be warmer than 1998”.

So my observation is that in the first 5 years of its prediction run it has already broken the lower end of the 90% (1.6 σ) confidence interval TWICE (which statistically it should break only once every 10 years ). And I am comfortable in suggesting that it will do so again next year – (which then of course will also mean that every year from there will have to be hotter than 1998 for it to show skill).

So how would you evaluate the model given the above?

Now – all this was in the slick brochure that was at taxpayer expense dropped on every major company Snr Executives desk. If this was a commercial prospectus – lawyers would be looking at this closely… And the travesty of this is that nobody will even blink if the predictions don’t eventuate – which in hindsight maybe I can take comfort in and assume some sanity in the corporate world… 

cheers
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/10/2010 15:34

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
As I keep saying, boringly I guess, take out the El Ninos and volcanic and temp peak is about 2002 and temp is now falling, as per solar with lag-ocean.


Yes you keep measuring from a warm EL Nino year (2002) to a cool La Nina year (2008) to get a cooling trend. And seem to think that when there is a warming trend from an El Nino in 2002 to a 2010 that the 2010 El nino needs to be taken out, but the 2002 left in to help your 'cooling' trend.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/10/2010 16:06

Originally Posted By: Arnost
Mike
So how would you evaluate the model given the above?


The values to date are within the range predicted by the model. The value for 2011 that you plot outside the range predicted by the model hasn't happened yet. They state a 90% chance of being within the shaded area. This means that any 1 in 20 year cool event should be expected to push the results below the range predicted, and a 1 in 20 year warm event should be expected to push it over. If measured by nino 3.4 the current La Nina looks like a 1 in 10 year event (quite comparable to 88,98 and 08). If measured by SOI you have to go back at least 35 years to 1975 to find a similar strength La Nina.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/10/2010 19:32

No, the only El Ninos of note are the 1997/98 and the one last-this year.
2002 was a weak el nino, and even if you take it out a bhit it makes little difference. We shall see in the next few years who is right and who is wrong.
It is all theory until then. My stance looks good to me anyway, AGW CO2 is just not convincing,
and is just not going the way the AGW CO2 theory suggest imo.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 29/10/2010 20:17

That's rather funny Mike:
Quote:
The value for 2011 that you plot outside the range predicted by the model hasn't happened yet.


I guess by the same token, I can say the predicted warming and sea level rise hasn't happened either and so it can be ignored...!
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 30/10/2010 08:53

Ooouch!
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 30/10/2010 19:24

Originally Posted By: Arnost
That's rather funny Mike:
Quote:
The value for 2011 that you plot outside the range predicted by the model hasn't happened yet.


I guess by the same token, I can say the predicted warming and sea level rise hasn't happened either and so it can be ignored...!


The predicted warming and sea level rises have been happening for about 30 years.
Posted by: Arnost

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 30/10/2010 19:46

Predicted? Predicted..?

After 50 or 60 years we're significantly less than a degree above the mean from the period where people were predicting onset of the next ice age... and the predicion to get to the 0.3 to 0.5 degrees per decade required for doom is nowhere to be seen!
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 30/10/2010 19:48

Yes, Mike,we are all frying with heat & dying of thirst, the crops have all failed from heat and lack of water, mosquito born diseases & many wars over food shortages are everywhere, and the beaches sea-side suburbs have all gone under water, and the seas are all acid with dead fish everywhere to be seen...just as predicted by many past alarmist AGW stories! Not!
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 31/10/2010 07:38

If you follow vague predictions in the media that have been dressed up to sound as scary as possible, then those predictions have not come true. If you imagine that figures of 0.3 to 0.5/decade that are predicted for later this century should also apply at the start of this century, then this prediction has not come true.

However if you look at what the scientists actually said, then the warming for the last 30 years has been about the same as what was predicted.

For example, here is Hansen 1981 which predicted a warming of between 0.25 and 0.4 from 1980 to 2000. (link)

Actual trend as measured from woodfortrees for 1980 to 2000 is 0.14 degrees/decade, or 0.28. If you measure the trend from 1980 to now, it has risen to 0.16/decade.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 31/10/2010 07:44

Fine, solar would have predicted that small increase...and as for "vague", let's get real, there were tons of them, they were strong, forceful, frightening, panic, as soon as possible or we are doomed, etc...and not just from media, from many scientists as well!
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 31/10/2010 11:59

An article by Dr Benny Peiser on a UK Met conference he attended in 2005
"AVOIDING DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE": THE MOST DEPRESSING CONFERENCE EVER
And note how any questioners and any doubters were promptly smacked down.
That was in 2005 but times they are a'changing!

For the Australian angle on the doom laden predictions from the global warmers / climate change ideologists.
The 10 worst warming predictions

And from C3 Headlines, numerous predictions from the climate doomsters that have been refuted by science based studies.

From WUWT; A little known 20 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed badly

And on Climate models, the source of all Climate predictions and predicted climate related catastrophes, an analysis of the performance of the models by Douglas Hoyt

[ Short BIO; Douglas V. Hoyt is a solar physicist and climatologist who worked for more than thirty years as a research scientist in the field. He has worked at NOAA, NCAR, Sacramento Peak Observatory, the World Radiation Center, Research and Data Systems, and Raytheon where was a Senior Scientist. He has conducted research on issues related to climate change, changes in solar irradiance on all time scales, and the sun-climate connection. > etc.]

A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE and
Greenhouse Warming Scorecard > The tables below provide a comparison of model predictions with actual observations [ 2006 ]
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 31/10/2010 14:34

I'm sick to death of all these pain in the ass cyclones that were predicted along with the continuing bloody drought and all this heat... well I don't know what will happen in the future?
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 31/10/2010 16:25

I posted this in another thread, but thought I would mention here to see what others think. Lets say that at 100% humidity there is 1% of the total weight of the air as water. However CO2 takes up 3% of the effect of IR absorption of water at 300ppm and 4% of the effect of water at 400ppm (since that .04% is 4% of the 1% of water). Therefore amount of CO2 increase in the last 50 years is almost the same as like adding 1% RH to all the humidity's worldwide and that could have a measurable effect on radiation loss from the surface. These calculations are not quite right as the air thins and holds less relative moisture as you rise through the column of air above until you reach space where the IR is dissipated but I think they are conservative. If you continue to increase CO2 to the levels of the Jurassic then it will be like adding 10% to all the RH values worldwide and the world should become a steamy jungle.

So in answer to your question Simmosturf what will happen next, just plan on a warmer wetter and greener world with the odd patches of drought in between the wetter areas and/or wetter times.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 31/10/2010 18:11

Snowmi, a couple of articles for you to get your teeth into on atmospheric water vapour and the climate interaction.
And it seems that this is another of those improperly researched segments of the climate with various guesses depending on the modeler's personal inclinations being programmed into the various climate models or its importance is just mostly ignored by the current IPCC modelers.

From Dr Roy Spencer; Five Reasons Why Water Vapor Feedback Might Not Be Positive
You will have to scroll down to Sept 14th for this posting.

Modeling the Basics, A mathematical summary of condensation in climate models.

Posted by Jeff Id on October 21, 2010 [ the AirVent blog ]
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 31/10/2010 19:21

Snowmi, that suits me, but isn't it supposed be dryer under GW? and your comment sounds like what it is already?
Posted by: BOM99

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 31/10/2010 22:56

Thanks for those links ROM.
Yes, its expected to get drier based on weakening cold fronts, but in reality warmer air has to hold more moisture. I think recent history has shown that even weak cold fronts can produce a lot of rain if there is the right moisture infeed, so one way or another I think we will get rain. Still does not make us immune from droughts though, but I think the rains will always return, and any long term drop in rainfall seems unlikely to me now.
The single biggest worry with GW I think is sea level rise, if it happens, but as long as you do not depend on living within a couple of meters of the ocean then there is little to worry about.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/11/2010 12:55

If you have been to the AirVent blog, you will probably have found this post as well.

Jeff Id's [ an engineer ] "the AirVent" blog has some very interesting items under discussion at times and another one of these is;
Weight of Water and Wind, Hurricane Pro’s Weigh in.

Dr Kerry Emanuel [ Prof of meteorology at MIT plus plus ] makes another comment on models as do a few others in the discussion following.[ my bold]
Quote:
The neglect of the mass sink owing to condensation has a long history. There are a great many approximations made in models, some of which are less justifiable than others, and after they were first introduced (often in the early days of modeling), people tend to forget about them. (The neglect of the internal heat of condensed water is another, and one of my own pet peeves is the almost ubiquitous neglect of dissipative heating, which is really important to such phenomena as hurricanes.) There are two papers that I know about in the meteorological literature that examine this particular approximation:


The discussion on the Air Vent post on Water Vapour that i referred to in the previous post gets some pretty heavy calibre climate researchers involved plus, at least for this old timer, some very heavy discussion going.
Even gavin [ as in Schmidt, the Oberherr of Real Climate ] gets into the act although he does seem to get somewhat of a brush off by the rest of the discussion crew.

I suspect that is because it is made very clear right through the comment's discussion that the science only is being discussed and climate politics is not invited to the party and Schmidt through association with Real Climate and his very close links to the CRU's [ and Hansen's GISS and the UEA clique ] Climate Gate debacle is now seen by many researchers as representing the more extreme aspects of climate politics.

Schmidt and his climate cabal are now forever tainted in the climate science world by his advocacy and Oberherr role in the Real Climate blog and his advocacy of one particular side and aspect of climate research.
Reinforced in the minds of many climate researchers by seeing the changing and shifting ground that is underway in the science of the climate, the politicals and in the public perception that has previously underpinned most past climate research.

And perhaps this is just another indication that a large part of climate research science is steadily undergoing a fundamental shift from a rigidly held and hard line advocacy of anthropogenic CO2 as the sole a driver of any so called climate change to a much more nuanced recognition that there are so many variables and unknowns involved in the way in which the global climate works that to continue the hard line stance re CO2 will drive climate research and it's cabal of advocacy researchers into a very tight corner.
Where eventually it is totally obvious to all that their past predications on the future global climate are becoming so remote from the reality that climate science will be consigned to the scrap bin of history by an increasingly skeptical and disabused public who has to foot climate science's bills.
So changing course to a more encompassing acceptance of ALL the climate affecting known and unknown variables but not so fast as to frighten the horses is now a part of climate science's quiet retreat from the extremist positions that many of it's practitioners have held in the past.
Some of course will never change but that is human nature and it has been forever so.

Times they are a'changing and who can foretell the future thereof?
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/11/2010 15:07

From warmista Climate Scientist Judith Curry's blog "Climate etc"

A quote from her "Decision making under climate uncertainty: Part I" and you will have to read the article to get the context of this quote.
Quote:
“Much more unsettling for an application of expected utility analysis is deep structural uncertainty in the science of global warming coupled with an economic inability to place a meaningful upper bound on catastrophic losses from disastrous temperature changes. The climate science seems to be saying that the probability of a system-wide disastrous collapse is non-negligible even while this tiny probability is not known precisely and necessarily involves subjective judgments.”


The question needs to be asked as to whether the early articulation of a preferred policy option by the UNFCCC has stimulated a positive feedback loop between politics, science, and science funding that has accelerated the science (and its assessment by the IPCC) towards the policy option (CO2 stabilization) that was codified by the UNFCCC. This feedback loop marginalizes research on natural climate variability (forced and unforced) on regional and global scales, focuses research on model development rather than observations (particularly paleoclimate), and values model agreement over a full exploration of model uncertainty (including model structure). The net result of such a feedback loop is an overconfident assessment of the importance of greenhouse gases in future climate change. Which has brought us to our current position between a rock and a hard place, where we lack the kinds of information that we need to understand climate change more broadly and develop and evaluate a broad range of policy options.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/11/2010 16:45

It is an assumption that the climate models are not as useful as we'd like to think they could be. One of countless assumptions based on how we think the Earth's climate system works (based on what?), when in fact we don't know any better than the output of climate models...because they represent what we understand in practice.

If we are going to criticise the use of climate models, we might as well have a better model to back up our criticisms.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/11/2010 18:29

Why use or even need models??? If they don't work then they are a waste of time and money.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/11/2010 19:24

Cosmic,
Models are a very useful tool to try and understand the way many complex systems work.
When programmed with data that has a long, well researched and well understood base such as in a lot of engineering, mining, oil drilling, hydrodynamics, manufacturing and even short term weather forecasting plus many other disciplines where there is a long history of solidly based theory and experimentation and a well understood and experienced knowledge base that has been acquired over a period of century or even a couple of centuries or more, they are invaluable tools in carrying out the calculations and the creating the designs for very complex projects.

They are also very useful tools in climate research as the use of models to exam the immensely complex interactions between the myriad factors that drive our global climate is proving and will continue to prove to be of immense value.
If the use of climate models stopped right there as a very useful research tool only then there would be absolutely no problem and it would be something to encourage.

But the data and the modelers knowledge that goes into any climate model is very far from accurate as we can see from the increasing numbers of articles and research papers on the climate and on climate modeling.
The models are not even very complete with innumerable factors still only partly known or even unknown and the assumptions that the climate modelers are incorporating into the models are sometimes quite wrong or inaccurate as you can read from the different opinions from climate scientists I have posted links to above.
And a model is only as accurate in it's predictions as the assumptions that are incorporated into that model and those assumptions reflect the biases of the developers and programmers of those climate models.

So on that basis alone, we are stupid to the nth degree if we try to change the way our entire society works on the sole basis of predictions from these very far from accurate and very, very incomplete climate models with their predictions of the future global climate running a up to a century ahead of the present.
And to make those societal changes at an enormous economic, personnel and societal cost with the very strong possibility of eventually finding that there only unknown and at best minimal results if any results at all to show for our entire civilisation's sacrifices.

Would you change your entire life and gamble your entire long term future on financial arrangements that will only come to fruition in some 30 years or more time based entirely on the predictions of a financial model which you know is far from accurate in the factors incorporated into it's programming and is known to have unknown biases in it due to the coder's beliefs about the various financial factors that went into the model? .
The present financial models have a very, very large and very detailed knowledge base to draw on but the Nobel Prize winners of one of the main finance models warned the users of their model that it was far from perfect and so it proved.
The model worked extremely well while share prices rose but failed totally when prices fell past a certain point and it's failure took down billions of dollars with it during the GFC.

And that is finance which can be and is painful for individuals but unlike climate models it did not have the capabilities of destroying entire societies or a whole lot of lives if the models got it wrong such as a major global cooling occurring instead of the model's predicted global warming.
Or with more research it is found that CO2 has almost nothing to do with any climate change as natural factors far out weigh any increased CO2 effects on the global climate.

Society will turn very nasty indeed on the perpetrators of the global warming scam if society eventually discovers that all the sacrifices that are being demanded of them and which may and in some cases has already has been forced onto them in the name of some computer models that predict a near future Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming [ CAGW ] which over time and which, with new research turns out to be totally false and is non consequential.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/11/2010 19:38

Computer models are only as good as the data fed into them, and the mathematics and physics incorporated into the model.
Wrong inputs and wrong maths and physics can all make huge differences to the results. I know from experience.
And in this case lets be honest, we are measuring results to the 0.1C of a degree, with input data error being
likely way above the result accuracy that we are trying to measure, not to mention that we are very likely
to be not inputting all the right variables, and very likely to be out with our maths and phyics as well!
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/11/2010 19:52

Perhaps I should have added a rider;
IF the models do turn out to be somewhere near right about global warming there are now an increasing number of economic studies that show very conclusively that adapting to the warming will only cost society a small fraction of the resources currently proposed as being needed to fully 'mitigate' the warming.

Adopting an "adaption" strategy for any potential warming [ or cooling which will be more difficult as we are already running just above a global temperature baseline where any future cooling will mean the onset of some very severe consequences for those living in many geographical locations ] will mean little in the life style changes for most of our society and which, unlike a "mitigation" strategy with it's demands for an extraordinary share of the global wealth to be directed to implementing such a mitigation strategy, will not hold up development or destroy the economic, intellectual and financial resources of our global society.
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 02/11/2010 09:11

ROM,

Keep in mind that private capital is driving mitigation technology that aims to replace fossil carbon releasing fuels for reasons of supply, demand and profits.

The most compact example of this is Abu Dhabi in the UAE, which is, unlike neighbour Dubai, oil rich, but also a major backer of alternative energy projects. (Hmm, they must know something...)

As China moves into internal demand driven economics rather than being dominantly export driven, we see 1.3 billion people seeking their place in the sun, so to speak, a process also underway in India and Vietnam and elsewhere.

In a way this will, in my view, frustrate the power crazy world domination tactics you are able to see in the AGW camp, since it will all come down to innovation and market forces, not world government etc.

True, this is not about the actual science of AGW. But it is about the world in which AGW will be disproven, proven, ignored or acted upon. The issue of energy supplies in conditions of broadening demand and toughening energy supply politics was always going to drive change, even if AGW concerns had never been enunciated and seized upon by all and sundry.

Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 02/11/2010 11:27

I agree with you on that [ again! ] Ben.
I almost included that aspect in my already too long post above.
Few seem to realise just how far down the track we are already in the scale of private investment that is already investing in new technologies in energy generation and energy use efficiency.
A lot of these technologies will only come to light over the next decade and some just creep up on us and when the more perspective ones amongst us look back, they will ask , when did this change occur?
And not just in the commonly thought of areas of household and transport industries but in the biggest sector of energy useage in a very large number of manufacturing and industrial processes that produce the immense range of products that underpin our entire society.

And I don't count the so called alternative energy generation systems like wind turbines and solar [ at the present ] as viable and efficient energy sources as they do not and perhaps never will operate as an efficient, an economic or reliable energy generation technology.
Wind turbines and solar power are holding back the development of other far more subtle and efficient energy useage technologies that are being developed by private industry by diverting taxes from these private developments into immense publicly funded resources that are being funnelled into the very low efficiency wind and solar technologies.
Those publicly funded resources, our taxes, in all likelihood could have built a couple of the latest GEN 3.5 nuclear power generators which would have had minimal outputs of the GHG's that the AGW proponents are so fixated on and those reactors would have lasted some 40 to 50 years. not the twenty years of wind turbines or solar panels, with a power generation capacity of as high as 85% to 90% of their rated capacity, far above the claimed 25% of the wind turbines for the same rated generation capacity.
[ A very recent study on the long term generation of wind turbine power has placed wind turbine power generation as low as 9% of rated capacity, an enormous cost per KW hour generated, but hey, who is worried about efficiencies when the government just keeps on handing out OPM.]
[ Other People's Money ]

Private capital is always trying to find ways to increase profits and if reducing energy useage while maintaining productivity has a viable and profitable outcome then private investment will implement such an energy efficiency strategy.

We think of energy use efficiency as relating to the obvious items like power generation and etc but the reduction in energy use strategies is is often quite subtle such as the use of different type materials in a products like plastics with their very efficient and low forming, molding and production costs compared to metal, different rubber mixes in tyres to give lower rolling resistance and better traction, the use of fibre optics compared to copper wires where the energy use in manufacturing and in the actual useage for data transmission has an almost unbelievable ratio of capacity against costs in favour of the glass fibres.
And so on through so many industries few of which the average person ever realises exists or just how those industries actually operate.

I have only come to this view by occasionally finding and reading a specific industry's internal publications and I have usually been very surprised by the depth of development and the sophistication of these industries but few in the general public ever take the opportunity to try and get an insiders view of such industries which are the essential industrial base underpinning our entire western society..

So many of our industries are already well down a path of adaption although the AGW proponents seem to be too utterly fixated by their rigid attitudes towards only one supposed "mitigation" solution to the totally unproven and supposed CAGW of the decades ahead future to realise this.

Only a couple of weeks ago I came across a study [ just can't find the reference at the moment ] where the household use of energy and the psychology of reducing household energy use was researched.
The unexpected as is usual in such studies surfaced again.
As households installed an increasing number of energy reducing items and strategies the households energy useage did not decline at all.
Human perverseness again came to the fore!
The householders more or less congratulated themselves on their role in reducing their energy use and as they were so much better users and savers of energy they promptly went out and brought even more energy using gadgets and items which maintained or even increased their overall energy useage.

Mankind needs four basic requirements for his existence;
1 / Water; Without water he dies within a couple of days. And he doesn't want to pay for it at all
2 / Food ; Without food he will survive for a month or so. He will pay but as little as possible for food.
3 / Energy; Even a cow pat fuelled fire is enough to help maintain an existence that is better than an animals in the wild.
He will go to great lengths to get useable forms of energy
4 / Shelter; Mankind can survive quite well without shelter for long periods but at some period in the need to survive, he will need shelter of some sort be it clothing to keep warm or shelter from weather.
Shelter, [ of all types ] the least important of four essentials he will invest a lot of his wealth in if only to impress the neighbours with his wealth and status.

Cheap energy underpinned and was the main reason that the great Industrial Revolution that started in the UK in the 17th century drove our civilisation to the sophistication it now has.
Cheap and readily available energy is the fundamental underpinning of our entire civilisation and to try and restrict or to price energy to levels that cripple our society in the name of some nefarious claims of an oncoming climate disaster all based on the output of some very dodgy computer models would be stupid in the extreme.
But as we all know there are some very stupid people, often unfortunately in positions of power and influence in our society.

Mankind has always adapted and we only have to take a very quick look at the range of human habitation on this planet, from the heat and dryness of the great deserts, through the dank. dark rain forests of the tropics where it rains most days of the year and metes of water fall every year, to the some 5000 metres above the oceans until only those who have a generations of adaption to the thin air at those heights can live their whole lives there, to the deep cold of the Arctic where, as read many years ago, an old Eskimo in Anchorage, Alaska told his friends that as it got above freezing it was getting too bloody hot for him so he was heading north to more comfortable climes or like caged animals in the great crowded cities of the world where some city dwellers will hardly ever even see any extensive areas of bare earth in their lifetimes.

We adapt and we as a race will do it all again and again as the Earth's climate changes yet again as it has always done and will always do so.

The whole AGW / climate warming scam and it's proponents are holding back the development and future of mankind in so many ways with their total and psychologically suspect rigidity and even hatred towards anybody who opposes their view point or provides alternatives to the computer generated disaster scenarios that the most fanatical of the AGW believers are so psychologically dependent on to maintain their belief in an ultimate doomsday climate catastrophe.
Something we have seen close up very recently right here on this forum.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 02/11/2010 13:33

Originally Posted By: ROM
Perhaps I should have added a rider;
IF the models do turn out to be somewhere near right about global warming there are now an increasing number of economic studies that show very conclusively that adapting to the warming will only cost society a small fraction of the resources currently proposed as being needed to fully 'mitigate' the warming.


Can you give me an example of one of these studies?

The Stern review claims that the cost of adapting to warming will be about 5 times the cost of acting on climate change now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 02/11/2010 15:19

There was a very recent one Mike plus some others that I have come across so I will try and find it.
Those climate adaption studies from little known economists and researchers don't get much mileage out in the public view as there is, unlike the more rabid wing of the AGW belief, not a near fanatical bunch of skeptics pushing their research and findings but those studies are just as relevant as any from economists that support the AGW theory.
Stern has been largely discredited in any case and you no longer find anything much in reference to his very biased study which was designed to provide a preordained outcome in another time but as they say, times they are a'changing!

And reference from Wikipedia with William Connoley the fanatical warmer and insider with the CRU hockey schtick Team recently forced to stop riding shotgun on any and every article dealing with anything that had to do with anything Global Warming??
Mike! tut, tut!

Anyway wouldn't you prefer a quiet steady adaption to any changes, even large changes which are not on the cards even with the politically set figure, NOT a science set figure of a temperature rise of 2C rise by 2100 in the climate instead of nasty and possibly quite vicious and a totally unnecessary upheaval in people's lives, our living standards and our society from the dictatorial imposition of new taxes, new draconian laws and forced intrusions upon our very personal lives and living?


Some very interesting developments are underway in this whole Climate Change / AGW scene.
No doubt quite a few posters here have seen Dr Roy Spencer's [ head of NASA's AMSR-E satellite unit ] article but for those who haven't here is Spencer's blog site and his very recent and very hard line on AGW
Particularly as Spencer as a climate scientist in his role as a keeper of the records for the satellite based global temperature data has to work with and co-operate with other climate scientists who may be of a different climate persuasion.
Or are things changing under the surface of climate research as well and as possibly indicated by Judith Curry's change in her way of now interacting with the skeptical community?

Global Warming Elitism, Tomorrow’s Election, and The Future Scroll down to the article.

And another factor so far [ deliberately? ] avoided by nearly all commentators on AGW but starting to surface is what happens if and when the AGW scam completely falls over in the public's perception?

With all such movements where emotions have been ramped up to great heights by those cynical and manipulative individuals who are seeking power and are doing so regardless of rules, the law or allowing anything or anybody to stand in their way, there is a residual and radical fringe group who will stop at nothing in an attempt to force their views onto the rest of society.
Think Al Quaida, IRA, ETA of Spain, Sri Lankan Tigers, Animal Liberation and etc.

There are fringe groups and individuals within the global warming groups who are so committed to the cause that they will quite likely turn to terrorist activities if their beliefs and their propaganda are seen to be failing to get the results and the attention they believe is their right.
And that is the frightening something that is just starting to be discussed in some places.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 02/11/2010 16:03

And, what is the cost of adapting to global cooling, Mike, especially after we have well and truly started to adapt to global warming forecasts.
Must be an enormous cost!!!
Posted by: Ben Sandilands

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 02/11/2010 18:26

If the Abu Dhabi exercise in 'windstalks' posted earlier succeeds it is fair to say wind turbines are dead. They should be dead on the flawed economics already but that's another story.

I disagree on solar. There are solar pathways that are very promising, particularly when integrated with storage strategies involving solar enriched gas products, as advanced by the Energy Transformed Flagship (despite the pitiful budget.) Solar augmentation is worthwhile if we wish it to be worthwhile. And, as an important hypothetical, solar works in cold conditions just as well as warm. Ambient temperatures are not relevant for many solar processes, starting obviously with those used in orbit. One of the important lessons in solar power so far is to design it into new buildings where the business case makes sense. Make it structural rather than additional.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 02/11/2010 18:32

It all seems to keep on coming back to those pesky climate models!

As we are all well aware the CSIRO has, based solely on their climate models, long predicted a drier climate and more and sustained droughts across SE Australia as well as in other regions in Australia due to Global Warming as programmed into their models.

And as drought is the scourge of Australia we should all be interested in the accuracy of any and all predictions on the prospects of an increasing frequency of droughts.
From Roger Pielke Sr's blog a quote from a post that goes into the likelihood of more global droughts due to climate change.
And the operative quote below is right at the bottom of the article;

2. “Future efforts to predict drought will depend on models’ ability to predict tropical SSTs.”
In other words, there is NO way to assess the skill of these models are predicting drought as they have not yet shown any skill in SST predictions on time scales longer than a season, nor natural climate cycles such as El Niño [or the PDO, the NAO, ect].


"The National Science Foundation Funds Multi-Decadal Climate Predictions Without An Ability To Verify Their Skill"
Oct / 21st / 2010

Quote:
Using an ensemble of 22 computer climate models and a comprehensive index of drought conditions, as well as analyses of previously published studies, the paper finds most of the Western Hemisphere, along with large parts of Eurasia, Africa, and Australia, may be at threat of extreme drought this century.
In contrast, higher-latitude regions from Alaska to Scandinavia are likely to become more moist.
Dai cautioned that the findings are based on the best current projections of greenhouse gas emissions. What actually happens in coming decades will depend on many factors, including actual future emissions of greenhouse gases as well as natural climate cycles such as El Niño.

and with the abstract [highlight added]

“This article reviews recent literature on drought of the last millennium, followed by an update on global aridity changes from 1950 to 2008. Projected future aridity is presented based on recent studies and our analysis of model simulations. Dry periods lasting for years to decades have occurred many times during the last millennium over, for example, North America, West Africa, and East Asia. These droughts were likely triggered by anomalous tropical sea surface temperatures (SSTs), with La Niña-like SST anomalies leading to drought in North America, and El-Niño-like SSTs causing drought in East China. Over Africa, the southward shift of the warmest SSTs in the Atlantic and warming in the Indian Ocean are responsible for the recent Sahel droughts. Local feedbacks may enhance and prolong drought. Global aridity has increased substantially since the 1970s due to recent drying over Africa, southern Europe, East and South Asia, and eastern Australia. Although El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), tropical Atlantic SSTs, and Asian monsoons have played a large role in the recent drying, recent warming has increased atmospheric moisture demand and likely altered atmospheric circulation patterns, both contributing to the drying. Climate models project increased aridity in the 21st century over most of Africa, southern Europe and the Middle East, most of the Americas, Australia, and Southeast Asia. Regions like the United States have avoided prolonged droughts during the last 50 years due to natural climate variations, but might see persistent droughts in the next 20–50 years. Future efforts to predict drought will depend on models’ ability to predict tropical SSTs.”
This UCAR press release and the article itself are not scientifically robust. Buried within this material are the significant cavaets:

1. “Dai cautioned that the findings are based on the best current projections of greenhouse gas emissions. What actually happens in coming decades will depend on many factors, including actual future emissions of greenhouse gases as well as natural climate cycles such as El Niño.”

2. “Future efforts to predict drought will depend on models’ ability to predict tropical SSTs.”

In other words, there is NO way to assess the skill of these models are predicting drought as they have not yet shown any skill in SST predictions on time scales longer than a season, nor natural climate cycles such as El Niño [or the PDO, the NAO, ect.

Funding of multi-decadal regional climate predictions by the National Science Foundation which cannot be verified in terms of accuracy is not only a poor use of tax payer funds, but is misleading policymakers and others on the actual skill that exists in predicting changes in the frequency of drought in the future.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/11/2010 10:08

Climate Etc; Warmista climate scientist Judith Curry's blog site

Reversing the direction of the positive feedback loop

Phew !!! shocked
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/11/2010 10:54

Originally Posted By: ROM
There was a very recent one Mike plus some others that I have come across so I will try and find it.


I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence to back your claim that the costs of mitigation of Co2 are higher than those of adaptation.
Posted by: _Johnno_

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/11/2010 11:30

Anyone read this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/03/world/main7017600.shtml
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 04/11/2010 13:56

Actually Mike instead of myself trying to educate your much better educated self, perhaps you could educate yourself in the mitigation versus adaption to climate change and the mix of the options that are being discussed by having a look yourself at the very large range of studies on this subject that can be found on the web.

All such studies start with the premise that global warming / climate change are going to be a serious consequence for the planet and so something must be done about it.
Nearly all the studies were done before Climate Gate and Copenhagen and a very large shift in the attitudes towards and well founded doubts about the probability of any actual human caused global warming of any significance is under way at the moment in both the science and in the public attitudes but for the sake of this exercise I will continue on.

In the studies I have read through and scanned it becomes very clear that the adaption strategies apply to the less developed countries which do not have much in the way of GHG's and AGW CO2 emmissions to 'mitigate" so the studies all concentrate on adaption stategies which on thinking about, applies to most of the world's population and nations.
Only in the wealthy and developed western countries where the emmissions of the so called CO2 and GHG's are supposedly a major problem if you believe the more radical elements, are 'mitigation" strategies even remotely applicable so a lot of the previous studies, both economic and political on mitigating CO2 emmissions simply do not apply to most of the lesser developed world.
Adaption is the key and in the long term for the developed countries as well if such a thing as AGW actually exists rather than natural cycles in the global climate system which we have adapted to in the past centuries and will continue to do so far into the future.

There really are some way out claims about effects of AGW in some of the supposedly serious and official studies such as this quote from this study ;

THE ECONOMICS OF ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE Dec 2008.
Quote:
On the one hand, it would be nearly impossible to adapt to some of
the potential impacts of climate change, especially catastrophic impacts such as the loss of the West Antarctic ice-sheet and the implied five to fifteen meter sea-level rise, as well as
irreversible damages to natural ecosystems. Mitigation is required to avoid these impacts.

Even the IPCC never made such claims and those claims are more likely in the the realm of the far out fringe of the worst of the eco wackos

Or this far out quote from the World Bank's official executive summary entitled;
The Cost to Developing Countries of Adapting to Climate Change

Quote:
While countries need to adapt to manage the unavoidable, they need to take decisive mitigation
measures to avoid the unmanageable. Unless the world begins immediately to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly, global annual average temperature will increase by about 2.5°–7°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century.
Temperature increases higher than 2°C—say on the order of 4°C—are predicted to significantly increase the likelihood of irreversible and potentially catastrophic impacts such as the extinction of half of species worldwide, inundation of 30 percent of coastal wetlands, and substantial increases in malnutrition and diarrheal and cardio-respiratory diseases. Even with substantive public interventions, societies and ecosystems will not be able to adapt to these impacts.

Alarmism advocacy at it's very worst!

All these studies also use modeling and those economic models start by using the conclusions from the GCM's on the future which as we know, are full of doubtful and now increasingly challenged assumptions [ ie; assumptions; a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof ] and now known to be incapable of any realistic analysis of the future global climate but which the economic models then used for the adaption / mitigation analysis are also full of further assumptions so the accuracy of any conclusions arising from those economic models are probably closer to the realms of fantasy than reality.

There is a fairly good thumbnail analysis of the state of climate research [ assuming a high degree of AGW as was guesstimated in 2003 ] and any economic spinoffs in a 2003 paper, a quote which is still fully applicable.
Climate policy and uncertainty: the roles of adaptation versus mitigation

Quote:
Uncertainty and Climate Change
At the heart of the climate change debate are two key facts. The first is the familiar and
undisputed observation that human activity is rapidly increasing the concentration of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere. Each year, worldwide fossil fuel use adds about six billion metric tons
of carbon to the atmosphere, and the concentration of carbon dioxide is now about 30 percent
higher than it was at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.
The second fact, however, is that no one fully understands how the climate will respond.
The increase in greenhouse gases could lead to a sharp rise in global temperatures with severe
consequences for ecosystems and human societies. On the other hand, it’s possible that the
temperature rise could be modest, easy to mitigate or adapt to, and far in the future. The most
likely outcome is probably somewhere between the two but the intrinsic complexity of the
climate makes it impossible to know precisely what will happen with any degree of confidence.
Even if had complete confidence in the projection of climate outcomes, determining the costs
and benefits of policies that would limit greenhouse gas emissions is even more difficult. Costs,
for example, depend heavily on how fast emissions would grow in the absence of a climate
policy: the more quickly emissions rise, the more expensive it will be to reduce them to any
given level. The rate of emissions growth, however, depends on factors that are impossible to
predict accurately over long spans of time: population growth, educational attainment,
productivity growth within different industries, convergence (or lack thereof) in incomes
between developing and developed countries, fossil fuel prices, and many others. Plausible
alternative assumptions about these factors can lead to vastly different estimates of future
emissions and therefore vastly different predictions of the extent of climate change3.
Figure 1 shows the various estimates of the costs of mitigation generated by the leading
economic models used by the IPCC4. These estimates are based on the Kyoto Protocol of 1997
rather than the highly diluted Kyoto Protocol that has emerges post the Marrakesh and Bonn
negotiations5. The key message from these models is that there is a great deal of uncertainty
surrounding the estimates of the costs of mitigation just a decade into the future. This doesn’t
reflect a problem with the models per se, but reflects the extent of uncertainty in understanding
the world economy, possible future scenarios and in estimating the costs or benefits of
mitigation.


With your beliefs in AGW Mike, I doubt that I could ever satisfy you so as usual, there will always be something you will pick on to make a point.
So take this as it is and I might add that every thing I have read on this so far shows that any conclusions arrived at by Stern and Garnaut on the economics of climate change were pie in the sky economics.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 05/11/2010 06:28

First you state there are plenty of studies showing that mitigation costs more than adaptation.

I challenge you on this and you promise to provide one.

You don't

I challenge you again, and you respond by mocking the studies that show the opposite.

And for the record I think the quote from the last paper sums up the situation very well. We don't know whether climate change will be modest and not as severe as the best IPCC estimates, or whether it will be worse.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 05/11/2010 11:51

Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
We don't know whether climate change will be modest and not as severe as the best IPCC estimates, or whether it will be worse.

I can agree with that.
Posted by: roves

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 05/11/2010 15:37

Originally Posted By: -Cosmic-
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
We don't know whether climate change will be modest and not as severe as the best IPCC estimates, or whether it will be worse.

I can agree with that.



Without a tropospheric HOTSPOT where is the green house effect?
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 05/11/2010 19:22

laugh
Thought I could get you a bit excited Mike!

From the OECD;

Economic Aspects of Adaptation to Climate Change

Enjoy!
All 48 pages of it!
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 11/11/2010 20:52

Originally Posted By: -Cosmic-
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
We don't know whether climate change will be modest and not as severe as the best IPCC estimates, or whether it will be worse.

I can agree with that.

Just to clarify, I meant in principal. The physical teleconnective evidence does not appear to be sufficient to draw firm conclusions to an extent that concrete action could be taken (on solely CO2-driven climate change). I believe preliminary guidelines could be formulated (to a limited extent).
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 11/11/2010 21:20

Originally Posted By: -Cosmic-
Originally Posted By: -Cosmic-
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
We don't know whether climate change will be modest and not as severe as the best IPCC estimates, or whether it will be worse.

I can agree with that.

Just to clarify, I meant in principal. The physical teleconnective evidence does not appear to be sufficient to draw firm conclusions to an extent that concrete action could be taken (on solely CO2-driven climate change). I believe preliminary guidelines could be formulated (to a limited extent).

Insert "I believe" after evidence.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 15/11/2010 17:23

Originally Posted By: ROM
The present financial models have a very, very large and very detailed knowledge base to draw on but the Nobel Prize winners of one of the main finance models warned the users of their model that it was far from perfect and so it proved.
The model worked extremely well while share prices rose but failed totally when prices fell past a certain point and it's failure took down billions of dollars with it during the GFC.

The GFC crisis was predicted well before it happened (see Four Corners/ABC), yet what did people do about it! We were warned!
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 15/11/2010 17:33

I would be very strongly inclined to cast a very careful eye over some information...whatever it puts forward.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 15/11/2010 20:18

“The half dozen or so published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing sub-aerial and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 132 to 378 million metric tons per year. The current anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of some 36.3 billion metric tons of CO2 per year is about 100 to 300 times larger than this range of estimates for global volcanic CO2 emissions. The anthropogenic rate is 138 times larger than the preferred global estimate of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998) of 264 million metric tons per year, which falls close to the middle of the range of global estimates.” [1]

“In recent times, about 50-60 volcanoes are normally active on the Earth’s sub-aerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 3.1 million metric tons per year. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the sub-aerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,700 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require the addition of over 100 mid-oceanic ridge systems to the sea floor.” [1]

“Global volcanic CO2 emission estimates are uncertain and variable, but there is little doubt that the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate is more than a hundred times greater than the global volcanic CO2 emission rate.” [1]

Notably, however, water vapour constitutes most of the gas emitted during eruptions…

[1] http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/11/2010 00:04

Yep! those with a life time of experience were saying don't believe all that stuff those financial models are saying as common sense and long experience tells us that you are crazy to keep pouring all that money and wealth into something that is based entirely on the outcome the predictions of some unproven [ financial ] models and so it turned out as so many are bitterly regretting to this day and will for another generation to come
Greed and the lust for power and influence and the resulting corruption drove all that!

Considering the thread heading, it all sounds awfully familiar somehow!
Posted by: Rod H

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/11/2010 13:41

This is a quote from Michael O'Leary the C.E.O of Ryan Air in Ireland. It was published in the Irish Mail on Sept. 12 2010

" It is absolutely bizarre that the people who can't tell us what the f... the weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the f...... global temperatures will be in 100 years time . It's horse sh.. "

That just about sums it up for me.
Rod H
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/11/2010 16:52

Originally Posted By: -Cosmic-
Originally Posted By: ROM
The present financial models have a very, very large and very detailed knowledge base to draw on but the Nobel Prize winners of one of the main finance models warned the users of their model that it was far from perfect and so it proved.
The model worked extremely well while share prices rose but failed totally when prices fell past a certain point and it's failure took down billions of dollars with it during the GFC.

The GFC crisis was predicted well before it happened (see Four Corners/ABC), yet what did people do about it! We were warned!

Perhaps I didn’t properly clarify what I meant:

It was an analogy.

Replace the acronym “GFC” with “moderate increase in temperatures due to CO2 emissions.”
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/11/2010 17:21

smile No worries, Cosmic.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 16/11/2010 20:42

Very funny RodH.... I love when that sought of comment is published... Very rare
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 17/11/2010 20:50

May I ask the moderators...is it reasonable to start a thread purely based on scientific research into AGW?

Edit: I would not be discouraged by a lack of contribution to this kind of thread. I already have rather a lot of material (including references) to contribute smile.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 17/11/2010 21:57

I don't think you have to ask Cosmic...Just do it, that is what the forum is for!
Posted by: Arnost

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 17/11/2010 22:30

It may be better to start a thread on a specific science topic - less risk for the thread to get derailed ... Also give the moderators an easier task as they could more easily make a call on off topic items and intervene / delete.

I would suggest that each such topic have "the science" or "science only" in the title and we all agree that in any such topic there will be no trolling / ad hom / libellous comments tolerated.

Go for it!
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 17/11/2010 22:47

Originally Posted By: Arnost
It may be better to start a thread on a specific science topic - less risk for the thread to get derailed ... Also give the moderators an easier task as they could more easily make a call on off topic items and intervene / delete.

I would suggest that each such topic have "the science" or "science only" in the title and we all agree that in any such topic there will be no trolling / ad hom / libellous comments tolerated.

Go for it!

How does “Developing an Understanding of Earth’s Climate System” sound? Is that specific enough? I guess it hints that it’s science only. I will give an introduction in any case – it must be science first, and include relevance to scientific literature.
Posted by: Keith

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 17/11/2010 22:51

Given the extent to which this issue by its very nature (and that of many other current affairs) extends, there's no more chance of achieving that outcome than any other similar thread has so far. Forum rules are in place and its up to the maturity of the participants to abide by them, upon pain of the relevant penalty being applied. And trolls only thrive because we prefer to be provoked by them rather than treat them with total silence. It's no use disappearing down a rabbit-warren of altruism only to pop up 100 metres away and find we are still facing the same fox.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2010 07:04

There has been plenty of science posted on this thread!
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2010 07:13

Yes, it is a bit hard as to what actually constitutes science on this thread...covers a wide range really.
You could start a "maths and physics of weather & climate" thread, but as Keith has suggested it will likely
start to cover a lot of issues as that maths and physics even are involved in some measure in many or most posts in some way or another.
Maybe it is a bit of a dream of yours, Cosmic. Maybe you need to post your stuff on a university type forum,
even there it will probably be de-railed because of the nature of the debate it seems!
cheers
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2010 09:12

A [ claimed ] pure climate / weather science thread was started a year or more ago by what seemed to be a well qualified poster who came on very, very strongly.
I suspect it was intended to be vechile for a big AGW push by the original poster.
[ Sounds familiar in view of a recent couple of new threads here. ]
It got about 2 or 3 comments before fading away into oblivion.
I guess it is still there somewhere way back amongst all those long gone and forgotten threads.

From what I have seen on this forum over the past few years, no thread can or will remain as a pure science thread regardless of the best of intentions of all participating posters as there are too many societal consequences and too much emotion, unfortunately, now associated with this whole AGW scam.
[ Somebody will probably suggest that I be banned from any such pure climate science thread! grin ]

If it was just qualified researchers and interested lay persons arguing and debating the real science without the demands that the planet's entire social structure be [ forcibly ] changed based on nothing more than the claimed catastrophic future based again on the projections of a few computer models then such a climate science based discussion would probably be a very viable and interesting subject.
Globally, too much emotion [ used by AGW advocates to advance their agenda ] and conflict has been injected into this whole unfortunate AGW episode to have a good and reasonable debate about the science until the emotive side of the debate is well and truly wound right down which will only happen sometime into the future.
The emotive aspect is starting to change as some former and more rational AGW advocacy scientists are starting to re-engage with the luke warmers and the more skeptical scientists.
A position forced onto the AGW advocacy scientists by the changing perceptions of the public that the constant cries of "wolf" from the AGW advocacy groups no longer carry much weight and are in fact, over time, a very significant turn off.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2010 10:37

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
Yes, it is a bit hard as to what actually constitutes science on this thread...covers a wide range really.
You could start a "maths and physics of weather & climate" thread, but as Keith has suggested it will likely
start to cover a lot of issues as that maths and physics even are involved in some measure in many or most posts in some way or another.
Maybe it is a bit of a dream of yours, Cosmic. Maybe you need to post your stuff on a university type forum,
even there it will probably be de-railed because of the nature of the debate it seems!
cheers


I guess I could try and start posting the material in this thread and see how it goes. I do not really want to influence the direction of the thread or dominate it. It is more that there are so many questions about AGW and I figure the material I have might represent an impartial starting point smile. I really don’t like the polarisation and I guess perhaps the hijacking of this subject, it’s a turn off, but I was thinking if we stuck to science more strictly then at least we might have half a chance of developing something concrete which everyone will find helpful. I don’t think a thread has to be perfectly pure. I don’t think that’s realistic. But I would think that it could be the basic theme smile. I am a bit reluctant on this new thread idea, so that’s why I find the feedback very useful, even though I’m still not sure.

I think I might leave it for the time being smile.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2010 10:50

I prefer specific threads for specific topics. Arctic sea ice to discuss Arctic Sea ice. Temperature trends to discuss temperature trends. Etc.
Posted by: ROM

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2010 11:20

You have a good point there, Mike.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2010 13:01

Yes, I like that idea too, Mike, each area for a seperate thread, as many of them are already. (Arctic Ice, Antarctic Ice, temperature trends, rainfall trends, solar & climate, El Nino,etc)
Posted by: Arnost

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2010 13:55

-Cosmic-

Judy Curry started a blog post where (I guess) she intended to sort of feel out the items in climate science that all can agree to.

http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/14/what-we-know-with-confidence/#more-1086

Again... I think it would be good to have specific threads. There are a lot of unfinished discussions in these WZ fora - coz they are difficult and require considered responses which (by the time we get to them) are irrelevant to where the discussion is at the time. And this is a pitty as this is the most interesting thing about these fora and where we learn... A specific tread in some way addresses this.
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2010 15:17

Edit:

In hindsight I could have simply left things as they were and continued regardless, however the impression I get is it's not any easy road ahead.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2010 15:51

I just happened to see the start of the interesting articles thread which reads at the start of the first post...
"Please no arguments about the validity of the stories either pro or con, just want to read as much as possible on the issue..."

then down the page a little...
that,s not a news article? Please no arguments about the validity of the stories either pro or con, just want to read as much as possible on the issue...
What's the thread called?"

then abit further...
"there is no point to that. all we would see is spin. i think we shoud be open to discuss the science and not just the medias rubbish."

And that was the end of the interesting news only thread...from then on...it started to go all directions and still does!

Same as this thread also, and it is the way any thread will go on this topic & many others to it seems! As I said Cosmic, nice dream, but in reality, it will not work! Just post your stuff here, we will read it(and probably disagree with it as well laugh)
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 18/11/2010 15:54

Originally Posted By: Arnost
-Cosmic-

Judy Curry started a blog post where (I guess) she intended to sort of feel out the items in climate science that all can agree to.

http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/14/what-we-know-with-confidence/#more-1086

Again... I think it would be good to have specific threads. There are a lot of unfinished discussions in these WZ fora - coz they are difficult and require considered responses which (by the time we get to them) are irrelevant to where the discussion is at the time. And this is a pitty as this is the most interesting thing about these fora and where we learn... A specific tread in some way addresses this.


Well just for fun I'm going to start a new thread for each of the FAR statements, and see what disucssion ensues....
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 06:43

From the comments of http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenha...oped-world.html

COMPOSITION OF THE ATMOSPHERE
CHEMICAL 1997 2009

Nitrogen 78.084% 78.08%
Oxygen 20.9476% 20.95%
Argon .934% .93%
CO2 .0314% .038%
Neon .001818%
Methane .0002%
Helium .000524%
Krypton .000114%
Hydrogen .00005%
Xenon .0000087%
Ozone .000007%
Nitrogen Dioxide .000002%
Iodine .000001%
Carbon Monoxide Trace
Ammonia Trace

I find it hard to imagine anyone getting upset over a 'trace' gas in the atmosphere, especially considering that it has been substantially higher in the "recent" past (middle ages for example). Due to obvious mis-information from the media and the scientific community, more people think the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 38% instead of .038%.
Posted by: __PG__

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 09:58

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf

I find it hard to imagine anyone getting upset over a 'trace' gas in the atmosphere, especially considering that it has been substantially higher in the "recent" past (middle ages for example).

'Substantially' higher eh? By how much?

Luckily for us there are physicists with a good understanding of the basic laws of heat transfer and radiation.
Posted by: Keith

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 10:46

PG..please put your case here with respect for others not as qualified as you are. People are fed up with your regular insinuations of lesser intelligence on their part, such as in your last post. We might look stupid but none of us came down in the last shower.

If the rest of us are beneath your dignity, please go elsewhere.

Thank you.
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 10:50

120mg of Arsenic is fatal. For an adult weighing 80kg, that is 0.000015% of their total body weight.

I find it hard to imagine anyone getting upset about trace amounts of arsenic in their body....
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 10:58

And, unlucky for us that many climate scientists have no detailed research and knowledge of complex solar effects!

And, Don't worry, Mike, you will have traces in your body of that and many other poisons, they are present in many foods...now that is real pollution we should be concerned with!
Posted by: __PG__

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 12:07

I'm fed up with people insinuating that Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Angstrom, Plass etc. are all idiots.

The scientific foundation behind AGW is almost 400 years old.

IT HAS NEVER BEEN DISPROVEN.

Not a single experiment in the last few centuries has shown that CO2 doesn't absorb and re-emit long-wave radiation (i.e. thermal IR radiation).

It's a fact of life.

To say that doubling/tripling atmospheric concentration of CO2 will produce no effects shows a complete ignorance of basic physics, let alone the paleoclimate record stretching back millions of years which proves that the earth's climate is incredibly sensitive to changes in ocean and atmospheric chemistry.
Posted by: Locke

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 12:48

Originally Posted By: __PG__
I'm fed up with people insinuating that Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Angstrom, Plass etc. are all idiots.

The scientific foundation behind AGW is almost 400 years old.

IT HAS NEVER BEEN DISPROVEN.

Not a single experiment in the last few centuries has shown that CO2 doesn't absorb and re-emit long-wave radiation (i.e. thermal IR radiation).

It's a fact of life.

To say that doubling/tripling atmospheric concentration of CO2 will produce no effects shows a complete ignorance of basic physics, let alone the paleoclimate record stretching back millions of years which proves that the earth's climate is incredibly sensitive to changes in ocean and atmospheric chemistry.


If you can find a specific post where someone suggests that CO2 doesn't absorb and re-emit long wave radiation then go ahead and do so. That is not now nor has ever been the question. Nor have I ever seen anyone indicate that CO2 is not a GHG. This is not a foundation for AGW. AGW is about how human emissions of CO2 may have altered our climate. CO2 being a GHG neither confirms or debunks this.

Questions relating to the impact of varying levels of CO2 in our atmosphere are far from being answered. Our understanding of natural climate variation on short, medium and long time scales is far from complete. We are not even close to having a solid context in which to place the climate variations of the past 3 decades.

So give me a break with your disingenuous outrage overs others "insinuations" on the work of Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Angstrom. You are absolutely full of it in this regard PG.

I'll give you some credit though. You managed to go a whole post without throwing in the words "conspiracy theory".
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 12:52

PG just when I was getting used to you, and about to listen respectfully, then you go off the rails, no one is going to listen to that. It is a big turn-off.
If all the CO2 AGW scientists are so smart how can they look in huge detail at all the componenets of the air and co2 in huge detail effects,
yet neglect to even break solar outputs down into its many components and study them in the same great detail as the air and CO2??? And we all know that solar outputs have affected the earths climate since creation!!!
All they have mainly tended to do is use sunspots and TSI, about like using the complete air to study all the component effects. It is basically useless!!!
They may be good in their fields but many of the posters would run rings around some of them for basic good old common sense!!!
We are fed up with a lack of respect really. All people are equal as God made us all, no one is better than the other, if I or you or anyone, think they
are they will be in for a rude shock in the future!
Posted by: Keith

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 13:11

Why is disagreement with the AGW hypothesis an insinuation that 'Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Angstrom, Plass etc. are all idiots'? That is a straw man of the first order.

We could equally, if we wished, be fed up with those who insinuate that Newton and others of his time were idiots because they didn't believe in evolution...and they were the founders of the science you refer to, PG. Not you, not the climate scientists, not the IPCC, nor any others.
Posted by: __PG__

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 13:53

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf

I find it hard to imagine anyone getting upset over a 'trace' gas in the atmosphere, especially considering that it has been substantially higher in the "recent" past (middle ages for example).

The insinuation is because CO2 is a trace gas (and it was substantially higher in the past), it is essentially inert and harmless...i.e. it isn't worthing 'getting upset' about.

This violates scientific principles that are over 100 years old.

I don't know why everyone is getting angry at me. I'm just pointing out scientific facts.

Perhaps Simmosturf has conducted some revolutionary research which shows that Arrhenius and Tyndall are wrong, and that our understanding our understanding of matter, the atom, energy and radiation are all flawed.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 14:03

Try your attitude, arrogance, lack of respect for others, and your angry comments PG.......reform them and we may listen!
Posted by: __PG__

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 14:06

Originally Posted By: Keith
PG..please put your case here with respect for others not as qualified as you are. People are fed up with your regular insinuations of lesser intelligence on their part, such as in your last post. We might look stupid but none of us came down in the last shower.

What qualifications people may or may not have relative to myself is irrelevant.

When people question the basis of the science upon which modern Western civilization is based...with no countering coherent scientific argument...or theory...or evidence...it makes me angry.

Especially in a thread entitled 'The Science in AGW Climate Change.'

You might as well say "Climate change is caused by the big spaghetti monster."
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 14:12

Its funny how in this forum those who defend the science put up with a continuous barrage of insults. And whenever we throw any insult back its a barrage of 'how dare you be insulting and arrogant'.

I'd suggest trying to stick to the facts, and developing a thick skin and 'turn the other cheeck' attitude PG, as the deniers have a far better argument when its about moral outrage and who insulted who, then when the argument is about facts and evidence.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 14:15

Well reform your anger and then come back. I am prepared to listen when you do. All science is there to be tested, science is not all fixed we are finding out new things every day. Did we stay believing that the atom was the smallest particle, etc, etc, etc. What you believe about AGW is not neccessairly correct, you may think it is but you may well be wrong. Others may be right, you have to be open to argument and other peoples point of view. You are not always right, no one is PG. We are diswcussing AGW climate CO2 theory, it may well be proven that Co2 does some warming, but beyond that it is all theory and unproven, it is not age old science, it is unproven, end of story, say what you like, but even most scientists will admit it is not really unproven science. there is much much ,much to be learnt yet!
Posted by: __PG__

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 14:18

It's a common mistake to confuse our lack of complete understanding of climate mechanisms to the solid scientific foundations on which AGW is based.

When you alter the atmospheric composition of the atmosphere (particularly gases which absorb outgoing radiation), you will alter the radiation balance of the planet. This is a fact. No scientific experiment has ever disproved this.

When you alter the radiation balance of the planet, you will alter the climate. This is a fact. It's basic thermodynamics. No scientific experiment has ever disproved this.

Now...as to exactly how the climate will be altered and what the effects will be...that's a tricky problem.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 14:28

Try using system that is not closed where various differenty energy from the solar alters every minute day hour and influences the composition of the atmosphere at many elevels changes the electrical & magnetic properties & cloud cover and composition anmd pressure patterns and changes the structure of the pole to equator upper levels and works down to the surface, and runs ocean el nino-la nina systems, etc. These things change the science around and we are not a closed "simple" system that you are looking at. The rules of earths temp changes are a lot more complex than you are looking at.
Posted by: __PG__

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 14:35

What additional effects the sun may or may not have (and is beyond our current level of scientific understanding) doesn't alter the fact that changing the composition of various gases in our atmosphere will change the amount of radiation leaving the planet.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 14:43

Yes, but without your theoretical positive feedbacks it is fairly small amount from the levels of CO2 now in the atmosphere, and the postive feedbacks overwhelming the negative ones are completely unproven, and you cannot tell me that they are , because they are not! We don't need past science to tell us what is right or wrong here, we just do not know at present.......So, the whole AGW theory is unproven, full stop!
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 14:49

And also, if more solar effects are coming in so also will the temp rise and if less so will it fall, and I would say a darned lot more than the small CO2 proven effects...without the addition of unproven positive feedbacks over negative feedbacks theory!
Posted by: __PG__

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 14:49

Are you sure you want to say that?

Are you familiar with the various fingerprints (i.e. spatial and temporal distributions of temperature anomalies in the surface, atmosphere and ocean, crysophere changes, atmospheric circulation changes etc.) predicted by the AGW theory?

Do you want to know how many have been observed in the last few decades?
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 14:57

I could give you a total certainty that solar effects dominate long and sghort term weather, but I am ham-strung by my business, so we will have to leave it at that. I do not need your unproven theories or whatever you like to throw up. In see it with my own eyes everyday, so why do I need you to tell me its' wrong, because sorry it occurs all the time and all the time and all the time. It is there and real. your theoriesn I do not see happening. Anyway I have much much work to do and am getting further and further behind, you may have the time, but I do not, I have a business to run. So I will leave you i9n your so called "you know all the answers dream". One day if you are still alive you will think differently I feeel very strongly. After all the proof ogf the pudding is in the eating, and despite what anyone says, if it does not work in practice, it is plainly wrong, no matter who said it...it is wrong.
I strongly believe that the solar will truimph as I see it clearly working every day, so it must be correct.
Posted by: __PG__

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 16:37

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)

I strongly believe that the solar will truimph as I see it clearly working every day, so it must be correct.


Is that very scientific point of view?

Can these observations be explained by changes in solar output?

* More warming at the poles than at the equator
* More warming at nighttime than daytime
* More warming in Winter than Summer
* Cooling in the stratosphere and warming in the troposphere
* Measurements of increased downwards longwave radiation
* Measurements of reduced outwards longwave radiation
Posted by: __PG__

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 17:05

We all develop points of view and biases based upon our own experiences. My first job was developing an infra-red prediction code that was used by the Defence Department for the computation of infra-red signatures of various aircraft and missiles. This experience taught me that a few thousand lines of Fortran can produce very accurate predictions of infra-red radiation transmission through the atmosphere.

Our knowledge of matter and energy in the atmosphere is very robust. You can't just wish away any effect of increasing CO2 on the atmosphere because you don't want to believe.

It's going to have an effect. We don't know exactly what. But you're not going to double/triple CO2 concentrations in the planetary atmosphere without consequences.
Posted by: bd bucketingdown

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 18:10

The amount of CO2 from now on produces little heat, again I repeat, postive feedbacks are not proven to be greater than negative feedbacks all your arguments fall in a big heap because of this! Come back in 3 years and show us the real results that prove your theories. Less and less folk are believing in CO2 AGW, the conference this year is down in countries and numbers and rightly so.
(And yes, covers most of those you quoted PG)
Posted by: Locke

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 19:04

The impact of the sun on our climate is clearly important enough that NASA in collaboration with the University of Colorado intends to study it further.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/188e2bc4d72943a6d6b50a91d727fbbf.html

PG you seem to be indicating that the impact of CO2 on climate is a simple plus/minus equation. No one here is denying that CO2 has a radiative forcing effect in the atmosphere. We are not idiots and if you believe most of the posters here haven't spent long amounts of time familiarising themselves with the issues then you are mistaken.

What is highly debatable is what impact any additional CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by human activities will have on our climate. A key part of the debate is whether CO2 is a dominant forcing factor and whether it is likely to override other factors in the coming century (before we actual run short of fossil fuels).

I simply do not see that we have enough reliable climate data to answer that question at present and certainly not enough to support doomsday scenarios being put out to scare people into accepting drastic changes to their lifestyle to reduce CO2 emissions. Even this winter in the Northern Hemisphere, people will undoubtedly die due to cold because they cannot afford the additional heating costs arising directly out of attempts to reduce CO2 emissions.

But thats ok PG. You and I will be fine. We will adjust readily to any impositions arising from any attempt to curb CO2 emissions because we have the resources to do so. Were not part of that cross section of society who live in poverty who are ill equipped to face the types of changes being proposed.

Meanwhile in a 5 star resort in Cancun....
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 01/12/2010 19:58

This looks like the proof your looking for PG although a theory also.....

The saturated greenhouse effect theory
of Ferenc Miskolczi

The Miskolczi-principle
The greenhouse effect is not a free
variable.
Earth type planetary atmospheres, having
partial cloud cover and sufficient water
vapour reservoirs, maintain an energetically
maximised (constant,‘saturated’)
greenhouse effect that cannot be increased
by emissions.

The following presentation serves the proof
of the above statements.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25071132/The-Saturated-Greenhouse-Effect-Theory-of-Ferenc-Miskolczi
Posted by: __PG__

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 03/12/2010 16:24

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
This looks like the proof your looking for PG although a theory also.....

The saturated greenhouse effect theory
of Ferenc Miskolczi

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25071132/The-Saturated-Greenhouse-Effect-Theory-of-Ferenc-Miskolczi


It's very poor theory that fails at multiple hurdles. According to Rob Van Dorland (Dutch Meteorological Institute) and Piers Forster (Earth Sciences, Leeds University) link

Originally Posted By: Dorland and Forster

What Miskolczi analysis actually shows is that water vapour fluctuations are dominantly responsible for the changes in optical depth, which is a reasonable finding. More importantly, his Figure 11 is a good illustration of the fact that the optical depth is not constant, and is therefore inconsistent with his own theory.

However, both observations and calculations with physically sound radiative transfer models show that Miskolczi’s theory does not stand up to scrutiny. Moreover, there is ample observational evidence that the most important greenhouse gases, water vapour and carbon dioxide have increased in the last four decades, meaning that the total infrared optical depth is indeed increasing. Finally, direct satellite observations of the outgoing infrared spectrum show that the greenhouse effect has been enhanced over this period. Even the calculations of Miskolczi show a change of optical depth with time. Therefore, neither observations nor radiative transfer theory can support Miskolczi's conclusions.


Roy Spencer says link

Originally Posted By: Roy Spencer

His computation of a relatively constant greenhouse effect with 60 years of radiosonde observations is tantalizing, but depends upon the reality of high humidities measured by these sensors before the mid-1960s, data which are widely considered to be suspect. Even with today’s radiosonde humidity sensors, the humidity accuracy is not very high.

On the theory side, much of what he claims depends upon the validity of his statement,

“for..two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of (energy) transport that may be occurring.”

If this statement was true, then IR radiative transfers cannot change the temperature of anything, and Earth’s natural greenhouse effect cannot exist. Yet, elsewhere he implies that the greenhouse effect IS important to temperature by claiming that the greenhouse effect stays constant with time. The reader is left confused.

His italicized statement, above, is an extreme generalization of Kirchoffs Law of Radiation, where he has allowed the 2 bodies to have different temperatures, and also allow any amount of extra energy of any type to enter or leave the 2-body system. No matter what else is going on, Miskolczi claims there is no net radiative energy exchanges between two objects, because those 2 flows in opposite directions are always equal.

This appears to fly in the face of people’s real world experiences.

Miskolczi claims that there is no net exchange of infrared radiation between different layers of the atmosphere, or between the atmosphere and surface of the Earth.

If this were true, then (as far as I can tell) there is no way for IR radiation to affect the temperature of anything. I know of no one else who believes this, and it seems to fly in the face of common sense.

I have not yet seen any compelling evidence that there exists a major flaw in the theory explaining the basic operation of the Earth’s natural Greenhouse Effect.

I would love for there to be one. But I don’t see it yet.


And finally...from an American Science Fiction writer Barton Paul Levenson link
Originally Posted By: Barton Paul Levenson

"According to the Kirchhoff law, two systems in thermal equilibrium exchange energy by absorption and emission in equal amounts..." [Miskolczi 2007]. In fact, Kirchhoff's Law states that for a body in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE), emissivity and absorptivity must be equal at a given wavelength. Miskolczi confuses emission with emissivity. This can lead to large numerical errors, since emissivity is of course constrained to the range 0 - 1 by definition, but emission can have any nonnegative value, and is typically in the hundreds of watts per square meter for low levels of atmosphere.

Miskolczi proposes that when greenhouse gases increase, water vapor decreases. This would seem to violate the Clausius-Clapeyron law.

It is therefore impossible not to conclude that the model proposed in Miskolczi [2007] is fatally flawed, and thus so is its conclusion of startlingly low climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.


I'd be very skeptical of anyone who claims to have found 'the answer' about AGW who doesn't understand Kirchoff's law, which can be found in more detail here
Posted by: Seina

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 03/12/2010 17:28

At a glance, I understand most of what you have put forward above, and have previously indicated concerns with The saturated greenhouse effect theory of Miskolczi's in other threads.
Posted by: gmhendo

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 24/12/2010 07:31

Some excellent discussion. It's a pity that the debate is not likely to be settled before the effects of climate change can no longer be disputed. At that point we would be well past the tipping point and most of our time directed to adaptation and survival. And there will still be folks who claim "natural cycles" as an explanation.
One of the issues that obscures climate change is the perceived pace of the change. It is difficult for us to attribute say, this years higher rainfall to climate change; you need a much more comprehensive data set to make valid statements. So as humans, to accept as fact something like climate change, we really need to be bitten on the butt before we "get it". Fair enough, that's the way we are, especially with bad news, it's called denial. Many folks just don't want to believe in climate change, and are not likely to believe if they can't see it in their lifetime.

So what can you see? Climate change is one thing and it's onset can be called subtle from a subjective point of view. Way less subtle is the concept of Peak Oil(PO), which for some reason gets little media attention. But PO will be right in your face very soon, it won't be subtle and it's effects immediately identifiable. There is little argument about whether PO is real, but there is justifiable argument about the timing. Well what is Peak Oil?
PO is simply that we are using more oil (35 billion barrels per year) than we are finding (~15 billion barrels per year). That makes oil unsustainable over time. How much time? Estimates vary, some say oil peaked in 2005, but others expect real shortages by 2040. In any event,oil is expected to be almost totally gone by 2100. Why the uncertainty about dates? Well we don't really know what the reserves are. And as oil prices rise due to scarcity (recall 2008, and the shocks of the 1970'2 and 1980's) marginal reserves become economical again and contribute to the supply. Note though they are viable only at higher prices. All the "easy" oil has been found, that's why we have deep water drilling, cold climate drilling and tar sand projects. That means higher and higher prices. It will likely reach a point though where even if you can afford the oil (or gas) it might no be available for sale to you. This is because some countries are signing long-term supply contracts for energy products, and if these contracts are honoured there is little chance of all nations getting sufficient energy.
Where does that leave Oz, given our fabulous coal and gas assets? It has to be understood that these assets, however large they appear to be, are finite, just like oil. It is debatable whether our policy of selling off these assets for short-term gain is smart, isn't it just repeating the paradigm that has made oil run out? Finally on energy, it is likely that energy shortages will generate regional political and social instabilities that will add serious consequences to the economic effects of Peak Oil.

So there you have it climate people, argue all you like about climate change, but along the way give some thought to PO. Some good news is in there - the solutions to PO are nearly identical to solutions for climate change, so maybe the climate change issues will be addressed as a response to energy issues???
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 24/12/2010 08:31

Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
The amount of CO2 from now on produces little heat, again I repeat, postive feedbacks are not proven to be greater than negative feedbacks all your arguments fall in a big heap because of this! Come back in 3 years and show us the real results that prove your theories. Less and less folk are believing in CO2 AGW, the conference this year is down in countries and numbers and rightly so.
(And yes, covers most of those you quoted PG)


There are two strong feedbacks which rely on basic laws of physics - water vapour and ice. A warmer planet will have more water vapour and less ice, so it will absorb more of the sun's warmth.

Two possible ways around this if somehow the atmosphere responds in a way that less water vapour makes it from the ocean to the middle troposphere to offset the larger carrying capacity of a warmer atmosphere. Another possibility is that the clouds change in someway to provide a negative feedback to ofset the positive feedbacks of water vapour and snow/ice.

In another thread you have stated that you believe that Co2 has no impact on our rainfall. How can you possibly believe in the significant changes to the way our water vapour and cloud systems work to justify no positive feedbacks, and also believe that our rainfall will not change in any way?
Posted by: Mike Hauber

Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? - 24/12/2010 08:42

Originally Posted By: gmhendo
At that point we would be well past the tipping point and most of our time directed to adaptation and survival.


What tipping point are you talking about? There are many tipping points involved in any chaotic system such as the climate. The formation of a single thunderstorm is actually a tipping point (but not a climate one of course). Another tipping point sometimes discusses is when the water vapour feedback becomes strong enough that it is guaranteed to cause a runaway boiling of the oceans, which is one tipping point for which adaptation and survival is not relevant.

I also strongly suspect that an Arctic tipping point has be