What Do We Think About Climate Change

Arrrrgh, Boston, you are such an optimist...

 

Of course this is of not relevance in a global perpective, but our National Mets Agency already considers 2008 as the coldest year of the century in Spain.

Most probably 2008 will be the 16th cooler year in the last 30 years.

Attached there is an interesting graph showing the extraordinary matching between CO2 and lower troposphere temperature.
(raw data here: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2)

I propose we sing a song all togeteher:
(music: PP&M's 'where have all the flowers gone')

Where has all the warming gone
long time passing....?
where has all the warming gone
long time ago.....?
where has all the warming gone?
gone to nowhere all of it!
oh, when will they ever learn!
oh when will they ever learn!

Cheers.

 

its called global climate change
not local
guess your not going to address the deconstruction of your previous claim
and obfuscate a little as Jim likes to say

look, its always fun but I gotta go
I get to do some consulting at the museum today
not sure what but I got a call so Im all happy to have something to do
laters
B

real quick
how come the graph stops at 2002 when your claiming century lows
hint
the century starts on 2000 not 2001

 

U. S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008
Released: December 11, 2008
(Update of the 2007 Report: “Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007”)

"The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers."

All of them doing 'ridiculous pseudoscience regurgitated by the climate skeptics'.

Cheers.

 

A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.
..................
"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131


Also:
"We speculate that warming alone cannot explain the retreat of Arctic ice observed in the 1980s–90s. Also crucial to this rapid ice reduction was the low-frequency shift in the atmospheric pressure pattern from anticyclonic to cyclonic. Positive and negative LFO phases of the SAT are shifted by 5–15 yr relative to those in the SLP record. The complicated nature of Arctic temperature and pressure variations makes understanding of possible causes of the variability, and evaluation of the anthropogenic warming effect most difficult"
(Variability and Trends of Air Temperature and Pressure in the Maritime Arctic, 1875–2000)


More:
Temperatures were warmer in the 1930s and 1940s in Greenland. They cooled back to the levels of the 1880s by the 1980s and 1990s. In a GRL paper in 2003, Hanna and Cappelen showed a significant cooling trend for eight stations in coastal southern Greenland from 1958 to 2001 (-1.29ºC for the 44 years). The temperature trend represented a strong negative correlation with increasing CO2 levels.
(See attached graph)

Cheers.

 

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.

By the way... its snowing in Vegas... LOL, now that would be interesting! Damn cold down here to for "summer"...

 

The source for the 95% attribution of the greenhouse effect to water vapor is a well-accepted, peer reviewed paper:

S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264


Realclimate and other AGW blogs have railed against this figure, although it is well accepted in climate science and the parameters that give us this generalized average are used in many GCM's.

Meanwhile. Relaclimate offers NO peer reviewed refutation, only a sarcastic, flippant rebuttal page insisting that these parameters must be wrong.


Tearing down the credibility of detractors (without addressing the gist of the detractor's argument) does not constitute a "demolishing" of the detractor's argument.

Everyone reading this thread knows this, well maybe with one exception

Jimbo

 

Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC cocoordinating lead author on the Technical Report on Carbon Capture & Storage, Lloyd rejects man-made climate fears. “I have grave difficulties in finding any but the most circumstantial evidence for any human impact on the climate,” Lloyd wrote to EPW on January 18, 2008. “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I have tried numerous tests for radiative effects, and all have failed. I have tried to develop an isotopic method for identifying stable C12 (from fossil fuels) and merely ended up understanding the difference between the major plant chemistries and their differing ability to use the different isotopes. I have studied the ice core record, in detail, and am concerned that those who claim to have a model of our climate future haven't a clue about the forces driving our climate past,” Lloyd wrote. “I am particularly concerned that the rigor of science seems to have been sacrificed on an altar of fundraising. I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” he concluded.

 

Its become an industry... too many jobs rely on it to get a clear picture of whats going. Boston slags off the self interested energy industry but on the otherside there are just as many funding whores willing to do what ever it takes to keep the gravy flowing.

 

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, explained how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html
“In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one,"

The U.S. alone has spent $30 billion on federal programs directly or indirectly related to global warming in just the last six years, according to one estimate ($5.79 billion in 2006 alone). Adding to this total is funding from the UN, foundations, universities, foreign governments, etc. Huge sums of money continue to flow toward addressing climate fears. In August, a State Treasurer in California "proposed a $5 billion bond measure to combat global warming," according to the Sacramento Bee. Even if you factor in former Vice President Al Gore's unsubstantiated August 7, 2007 assertion that $10 million dollars a year from the fossil fuel industry flows into skeptical organizations, any funding comparison between skeptics and warming proponents utterly fails.

(Note: this info was from mid 2007. Amounts today are probably much, much bigger)

Cheers.

 

Ridiculous pseudocientists

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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/open-discussion/crude-oil-absolute-must-see-program-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????

 

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