What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Guillermo]

A few "ridiculous pseudoscientists producing ******** to be regurgitated by the climate skeptics":

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190
studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO.

............

I know it's a long and not very useful post, as well as somewhat yelly, but you know....

Cheers.

[Meanz Beanz]

Originally Posted by masalai

You may postulate that an ice age is due.....

Supposedly a mini one is due.... feels like its on its way this summer down here, oh well at least its raining.

[Jimbo1490]

Guillo,

You've come up with a lot of names in your last post. It's going to take some time to find dirt on each and every one of them. Maybe some are drug dealers or wife beaters. Or worse, maybe they have worked for (gulp ) an EEEEEvil oil company in the past. This OF COURSE means that everything they say on the subject for evermore is biased and unscientific. After all, the money from oil companies is SOOO corrupting that it causes otherwise reasonable men of science to completely abandon not only the objective search for truth, but even the decency to care about the future of the planet. Oil company money makes people more evil than Satan the Devil

Jimbo

[masalai]

Jimbo1490, in my current mood of despair at reading the global situation, your beloved "oil" companies will run out of influence soon http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/ope...-21427-97.html post 1443 and below the video click the "play all" link - That should put the cat of reality amongst the pigeons of blind innocence....

Seems that the "perfect storm" is sooner rather than later and will include end of oil as we know it, fiscal collapse because current forms of trade have demonstrated that the currency is just a shadow and no one is prepared to risk accepting a shadow for toil or tangible products.... The removal of the Gold Standard in 1971 can be blamed for the escalation of greed and printing money quicker than Zimbabwe ever could.... and Boston has posted, reminding us that the global fisheries are also empty so no confidence in money, oil, food supply from land and seas and the climate will change as it always does and only a small fraction of us (humanity) will remain to witness that.... so may I suggest that wise reading may be to study the activities of humanity and go figure????

[Jimbo1490]

Masalai,

That was only the final nail in a coffin that was built in 1916, a coffin named "The Federal Reserve Bank Act", which gave various (mostly) European capitalists (unconstitutional) ownership of the US financial system via a private, unauditable, for profit reserve bank which is no more federal than Federal Express. It was the greates bi-partisan f__cking of the US people ever perpetrated upon them by our greedy, feckless legislators and their cronies in big business and old money.

Jimbo

[masalai]

Our deepest sympathies at this untimely demise...

[brian eiland]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Masalai,

That was only the final nail in a coffin that was built in 1916, a coffin named "The Federal Reserve Bank Act", which gave various (mostly) European capitalists (unconstitutional) ownership of the US financial system via a private, unauditable, for profit reserve bank which is no more federal than Federal Express. It was the greates bi-partisan f__cking of the US people ever perpetrated upon them by our greedy, feckless legislators and their cronies in big business and old money.

Jimbo

I believe you might be referring to this subject matter, "The Creature from Jekyll Island"
A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
http://www.financialsense.com/transc...18griffin.html

[masalai]

Hi brian eiland, Nice post, and now you may discern that I was aware as I prefer to call them the "Money Controllers" or "the Fat Money Controller" a play on a toy character in the kiddies model rail-road TV show, "Thomas the Tank Engine" et al.... I care not to know their names and have no respect for these "greedy buggers"....

[Boston]

ok so I havent much time at the moment but how about a couple across the bow in passing
looks like once again global climate skeptics have failed to adequately address the 3 issues presented and instead have generally distracted from them

if the temp is not rising
why is all this ice melting
(skeptics have only speculated that the unquantified element of volcanic activity is to blame rather than consider any of the known forcing agents )

skeptics have failed to admit there is plenty of data supporting tropical tropospheric warming
when they had said categorically there was none
( see post #1660 )

skeptics have failed to admit that water vapor makes up only ~50% of the greenhouse effect and not the 60%, 96%, 98% they have so far claimed
( a complete deconstruction of there supporting essay can be found at post # 1678)
( skeptics did offer a fifteen year old article cited by only 2 different authors as "well accepted climate science")

Well folks have been hard at it in my absence, but skeptics failed to redress a detailed deconstruction of there claims about water vapor; instead presenting a 15 year old article in there defense; cited only 3 times in peer reviewed articles in one data base and only 2 times in another both by the same researcher. The article presented as some kind of savior to the original claim that "water vapor contributes about 96% of the greenhouse effect" is not open access and because its so old and has been revised since is available through purchase only
sorry
not interested in outdated and incorrect modeling that relies on black body analysis and apparently fails to recognize a difference in volume vs effect
nice try guys
is this what you are saying is

is well accepted in climate science and the parameters that give us this generalized average are used in many GCM's.

when it is only cited a rare few times

this begs the question who is using it in there "many GCM's"
please present us with these many GCM's so we can check out who is considering "well accepted" 15 year old work in there present GCM predictions

yerp
money is a joke as well as that last from the skeptics pen
lots of problems that will need a solution
however solutions seldom present themselves or get implemented
without the problems first being at least recognized as such

but there is a light at the end of that long dark tunnel Jimmy
we had a rare moment of agreement on that hole federal reserve sham
somehow I think we are on the same boat with false flag operations
but global climate change isnt going to be one of em
its a reality or all that ice wouldnt be melting now would it

If I remember that federal reserve act passed the senate on a Christmas holiday session when only a hand full of supporters had deliberately stayed behind specifically to vote on it in a "rare" holiday session
nice trick eh
same for the income tax laws

as some point we took the old dollar off the gold standard and basically put it on the oil standard
now as oil is just about out
the dollar can only go to **** as well
( although industry is claiming; from todays cnn )

"The East Coast really has not been looked at for 30 years," said Randall Luthi, who heads up the drilling plan as director of Interior's Minerals Management Service. Luthi spoke from his Washington office to CNN Radio.

"Our best guess is that area could contain about 130 million barrels of oil and 1.14 trillion cubic feet of natural gas," he said.

if I remember Masalai thats about 36 hours worth
well worth demolishing the environment for eh
good plan ;-)

industry goes on to make some pretty wild claims

Such an oil find would be small compared with the estimated 40 billion barrels in the Gulf Coast.

way to hang a carrot in front of the (republicans) donkeys
assuming that were true and its most likely not
nor is it likely anything like that number is recoverable
at present consumption thats something like a year two months
again not much help
and just squeezing that last little bit of profit from the destruction of the environment
great plan guys
great plan

Its more directly tied to energy, it takes 10 calories of oil to deliver 1 calorie of food using our modern systems. Boston I fear you may suffer from the myopic disease that haunts most of our specialist these days as we learn more and more about less and less.

Meanz if you read back you will find a thread I posted concerning wheat prices and solar activity
might find it interesting
and might I add
your concern for my health and well being is touching

eat drink and be merry guys
for tomorrow
we are screwed

love and happiness
B

oh almost forgot
did I hear a plea on a consensus basis in there somewhere
funny how that argument works when you think its on your side
but when its shown to not be
all of a sudden it gets railed against
97% of climate scientists is what the consensus is
and its growing
thanks for the mention
;-)

[Jimbo1490]

Nobody said temps are not rising; the fact that they are rising mostly at the northern pole is NOT supportive of greenhouse warming, which should warm the tropics first and most. Instead the tropics temps have remained essentially flat.

There is nothing to admit about tropical troposphere warming; all the data (except the highly controversial 'wind derived' data) show only slight warming,nothing unusual, anomalous or alarming; NOWHERE NEAR the amount predicted by greenhouse warming theory and GCM's which are programmed with basic greenhouse theory.

AGW leaners right and left the have conceded that there has not been the 'significant and unmistakable' warming that theory and modeling predicts; they just come up with ever more complex theories to explain how greenhouse warming just might warm the north pole more than the tropics, even though just a couple of years ago they said the opposite.

All the peer reviewed lit on the attribution issue puts water vapor way ahead of CO2 in greenhouse potential; indeed the GCM's use the same parameters that give the oft quoted 95% average,(based on the paper I cited earlier, a paper that is well accepted in climate science) so the scientists who do the modeling put much more faith in that figure than any of the much lower figures postulated by the (frustrated)warmers. Some warmers have decided to attack this figure because, again, you can't get scary enough predictions using the scientifically supported 95% attribution figure.

ALL these points have been addressed OVER and OVER.

I think they were even addressed in the 2006 thread

Jimbo

[Boston]

wow
stop the presses
holly **** did Jimmy just admit we are warming up
take a day
have a brew
you are getting lucky tonight brother
and take a deep breath
your catching on

oh my god another admission
now there is slight warming in the tropical troposphere were as before there was none
why Jimmy
keep that up and before you know it you will be sitting on my side of the fence downing a brew and watching the skeptics do back flips trying to explain themselves

that article you cited was so old its not even available publicly anymore
and please, "well accepted"
it was cited three times twice by the same guy
and as far as I can see never used in any GCM other than the original authors
feel free do dig that up and keep me posted

and if those answers are so old and easy
then were are they

seem like you know right were they are so lets see em eh
good luck with that
B

[Jimbo1490]

Lindzen, Christy, Singer and several others all have peer reviewed papers with attributions ranging from 92-95% as you know.

You may not like any of these authors, but their works are well accepted in climate science. Whether you prefer to accept their well-regarded assertions, argue the merits or simply try to impugn their character and motive by invoking childish innuendo is more revelatory of your own character than theirs or the scientific merits of their arguments. I hope you can see that.

Jimbo

[Boston]

they soundly failed the basic litnus test any good researcher puts there sources through

and they played off each other and failed to show there work in deriving that figure

besides they were talking about clouds and vapor combined
they also tend to ignore the forcing vs feedback relationship between temp and humidity
also there is that little darling about jiving with direct experimentation which is were the 36 to 66% water vapor greenhouse effect number comes from
those numbers you mention may get kicked around some by the industry skeptics
but that doesn't make em stick any better than the tobacco industries bull about smoking and health risks

and no they are not well accepted nor is there work taken seriously at all
go mention them on any of the science forums and see were it gets you
but I advise you to wear some tenni's as your going to be running for your life should you try it

best B

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Boston

and they played off each other and failed to show there work in deriving that figure

This is false; all algorithms and methodologies were freely published in the papers without the acrimony that accompanied similar publication involving several works by their detractors. Mann, Briffa and Hansen played off each other ENDLESSLY, yet you seem untroubled by this.

Originally Posted by Boston

besides they were talking about clouds and vapor combined
they also tend to ignore the forcing vs feedback relationship between temp and humidity

One tends to lead to the other; clouds and precipitation being that robust negative feedback which keeps water vapor levels in check and quite independent from CO2 levels. Attempting to try to quantify the behaviors of these gases without their combined effect leads to erroneous conclusions of a runaway feedback between CO2 and water vapor.

Of course the real test is whether one take or the other is predictive; do the climate alarmists' predictions (based on their understanding of the behavior of the various greenhouse gases) hold up? The answer seems to be 'NO'; the actual observed world is behaving more like Lindzen, Singer and Christy have predicted(based on their understanding of the behavior of the various greenhouse gases), NOT as Mann, Briffa and Hansen have predicted.

Jimbo

[Boston]

found this short essay on my desk top and thought Ild throw it out for some abuse
enjoy

Water vapour is indeed the most dominant greenhouse gas. The radiative forcing for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the ocean and air temperature and is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.

If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.

Water Vapour as a positive feedback
As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation.

How does water vapour fit in with CO2 emissions? When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air more to a higher (more or less) stabilized level. So CO2 warming has an amplified effect, beyond a purely CO2 effect.

How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000).

Empirical observations of water vapour feedback and climate sensitivity
The amplifying effect of water vapor has been observed in empirical studies such as Soden 2001 which observed the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop. A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is also confirmed by numerous empirical studies examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past.

Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study (Santer 2007), otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels. Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system.

Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Basic theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

I bring this up based on the statements about absorption
looks like a 2/1 ratio to me which makes that mythical 90+% water vapor contribution to greenhouse gas effect impossible