What Do We Think About Climate Change

Ive been meaning to try that
I remodeled a basement for one of the guys on the brewers association
he won a hole series of national gold medals for his beer
guy owns a pub up in boulder

he is real active in the hole warming thing as well as being a great brewer

best B

 

I scream, you scream, everybody likes icecream!

Or should that be http://www.icecap.us/, which today is hammering long nails into the coffin of AGW. Read 'em and weep Al gore ithm.

The fact that the planet has entered a cooling period is no cause for celebration. David Archibald has pointed out that US agricultural production is about to fall by 30%. See under "What's New and Cool".

Here it is, almost 2 pm and my car has finally thawed out. Tonight I ain't going out.

Perry

 

Courtesy of Piers Corbyn.
http://co2sceptics.com/attachments/... Winter Update Download__0__0__1230725842.pdf

 

From Perry's post:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4572604506602442348

So what's it going to be; 'Spin Science' or fact-based science?

Jimbo

 

that's a great page
if your into industry spin

seems I was hoisting a few in the pub the other day when I started chatting with the neighbor
turns out the guy works for the energy industry in the pr department
so I got him a brew and started asking questions
we had a long talk about this hole thing and it was dam enlightening
confirmed a lot of what Ive been trying to communicate

apparently they ( the energy industry ) did a study of what news, people tend to remember and for how long
turns out that folks tend to have about a ninety day forget time
( although round here we seem to do a little better than that )
so what the energy industry does is every ninety days or so they release another phony web site with more phony information to offset the science and prolong the industries profitability
if you look at that website its all spin
just like what the tobacco industry did when they tried and still do to defend smoking from a medical point of view

interesting eh
agnotism at its finest
no wonder someone finally named the practice

another thing that I found interesting is industry pay's people to also get out and spread there spin
its a very active campaign
people are actually payed to do nothing buy get out start websites, offer articles to the press, get on the net? and engage in a pr campaign to fool the public into not knowing what to believe

was an very enlightening conversation
B

 

Ireland's Environment minister Sammy Wilson: "I still think man-made climate change is a con"

“What are the problems that face us either locally and internationally. Are those not the things we should be concentrating on?” he asked. “HIV, lack of clean water, which kills millions of people in third world countries, lack of education. A fraction of the money we are currently spending on climate change could actually eradicate those three problems alone, a fraction of it."

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...manmade-climate-change-is-a-con-14123972.html

Here's my toast to Sammy!

 

Big Al won't tolerate dissenters:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2

Excerpted:

“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer said this week. Happer is a Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

You can read the full report here.

An Excerpt:

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer reviewed
studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the
UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a
"consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of manmade
climate fears.


Jimbo

 

your man sound like he is a real good sport about being fired
probably used to it by now what with all those crazy ideas of his

and in todays news

I mention this because co2 is not the only driving force in climate change
obviously
what it is
is a good all round barometer for change
and its changing fast
kinda like if we bomb the planet with comets
but this time with exhaust fumes

that will start a ruckus
B

 

Excerpted from this article:

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback." (boldface added)

Jimbo

 

Miami Herald - July 5, 1989 - 2E SCIENCE

GREENHOUSE WARMING NATIONS MAY VANISH, U.N. SAYS
A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the United Nations U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the problem...."

Blah, blah, blah

Jimbo

 

Excerpted from Testimony of Roy W. Spencer before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 22 July 2008:

"Regarding the currently popular theory that mankind is responsible for global warming, I am very pleased to deliver good news from the front lines of climate change research. Our latest research results, which I am about to describe, could have an enormous impact on policy decisions regarding greenhouse gas emissions. Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC).

Another way of saying this is that the real climate system appears to be dominated by “negative feedbacks” -- instead of the “positive feedbacks” which are displayed by all twenty computerized climate models utilized by the IPCC. (Feedback parameters larger than 3.3 Watts per square meter per degree Kelvin (Wm-2K-1) indicate negative feedback, while feedback parameters smaller than 3.3 indicate positive feedback.) If true, an insensitive climate system would mean that we have little to worry about in the way of manmade global warming and associated climate change. And, as we will see, it would also mean that the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural. Of course, if climate change is mostly natural then it is largely out of our control, and is likely to end -- if it has not ended already, since satellite-measured global temperatures have not warmed for at least seven years now."

Jimbo

 

Odd sort of replay.... eh jimbo?

 

Water vapour

Just a remarks of a layman about water vapours..
We have basicly two air masses, other humid , and other dry. So 100%+0%/2=50% whatever happens and humidity stays steady..
The real difference in this is how fast the carousel goes on.. may wind blow to our sails

 

Thomas,

So if the AGW alarmist are right, and the climate system is dominated by positive feedback with water vapor, why then are the AGW alarmists consistently unable to predict climate sensitivity to CO2? Why is CO2 concentration disconnected from temp trends? Why did the climate NEVER have a 'run away' greenhouse event in the past when CO2 concentrations were very high? Why do you ignore the work of Spencer, Lindzen, Christy and others that show a large negative feedback dominates? Why are you not skeptical of any hypothesis about a natural system dominated by positive feedback, being that such systems are as rare as hen's teeth? Why are you surprised that NASA (strongly influenced as it is by the charlatan James Hansen) can seem to come up with no conclusion other than that which conforms to the standard AGW alarmist hypothesis?

Read the complete Spencer Testimony yourself if you need further convincing (and I'm sure you do )

Don't worry, Thomas; there's plenty more bad stuff happening in the world for you to wring your hands over-REAL bad stuff, not the made-up kind like AGW. You'll find something else to worry over-something better- and so will everyone else!

Jimbo

PS

Marohasy is a bona fide scientist, NOT a 'lay person', though admittedly not a scientist in the field under discussion. This makes her no less qualified than most of the 'consensus' of scientists who are supposed to impress (intimidate?) skeptics, a consensus that includes at least one gynecologist and numerous others not involved in climate science at all. Look at the leadership of the IPCC for th most shocking examples of 'fish out of water'. Spencer, Christy and Lindzen, OTOH, are three of the world's most eminent scientists in the field under discussion. Do you not consider their numerous papers 'primary sources'?

 

Thomas,

BTW, your post from the NASA is not much more than a 'blog' itself, being only a synopsis on a web page for public consumption. It is NOT a peer-reviewed study, although it call one as a reference. But this tends to imply that all the studies funded/conducted by NASA have come to this conclusion, which is NOT true.

From the same website, different page:

"Part of the reason the predicted temperature range is so great is that scientists don’t entirely understand whether the atmosphere will become more humid as it warms, and humidity is one of the primary factors that will influence how much the climate will warm over the next century. If the humidity of the atmosphere does indeed increase, it can as much as double the warming from carbon dioxide alone. Thus, an understanding of how the humidity of the atmosphere will change is of fundamental importance in predicting future climate. The problem is one that Ken Minschwaner and Andrew Dessler, researchers at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, have worked to remedy using data from the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS).

Minschwaner, also a Professor of Physics at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, and Dessler, also a researcher with the University of Maryland’s Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, formulated a simple, one-dimensional model to describe how the humidity of the atmosphere will change as the Earth heats up in response to carbon dioxide emissions from burning of fossil fuels. Surprisingly, their model predicted smaller increases in humidity in the upper atmosphere than large global climate models do, and data collected by the Microwave Limb Sounder and the Halogen Occultation Experiment on NASA’s UARS satellite support their model. Their findings imply that the Earth will warm significantly, but probably not as much as most global climate models predict. Their results appeared in the Journal of Climate on March 15, 2004."

Jimbo