What Do We Think About Climate Change

The British Climate Change Act: a critical evaluation and proposed alternative
approach.
Roger A Pielke Jr, Environmental Research Letters, published 18 June 2009.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-...quest-id=996f9299-cf04-4b58-af39-3b3f42e78724

"A focus on decarbonization as the central goal of
carbon policy rather than emissions reductions means that to
achieve specific stabilization targets the rate of decarbonization
of the UK economy must not only exceed the rate of
economic growth, but it must exceed rates of decarbonization
observed historically in the UK and in other developed
countries5. Because no one knows how fast a large
economy can decarbonize, any policy (or policies) focused
on decarbonization will have to proceed incrementally, with
constant adjustment based on the proven ability to accelerate
decarbonization (cf Anderson et al 2008). Setting targets and
timetables for emissions reductions absent knowledge of the
ability to decarbonize is thus just political fiction."

Cheers

 

Climate change horror: the UK will be like Provence

A UK government report unwittingly reveals that we should not be cutting carbon use but investing in Mediterranean-style cooling measures.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7066/

Cheers, Perry!

 

The Thermostat Hypothesis

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/

Cheers.

 

I don't know if it's new or been posted before, but I just watched this for the first time:



Links to the other parts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTqBrML4nsc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv06IyygoUs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y87vLJrh2AY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pRmbBsdhNE

Jimbo

 

Anthony Watts has been evaluating the locations of surface weather stations, many of which are now inappropriately located due to urban development. Could it be that the alarm over rising temperatures was engendered by false numbers and that AGW does not exist? http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

Worse still is the distinct possibility that the benevolent warming that has occurred, is part of a totally natural cycle and that as the temperature have not risen any further for a decade and have fallen since 2003. we humans are now faced with the onset of the next 100.000 years glacial period. That will bring extinction for many species, perhaps including the majority of humans. Those who survive will evolve away from Homo sapiens sapiens into Homo fridgidus tootsies.

 

just taking a break from panic and barrage of insults that tend to ensue whenever I point out the complete lack of scientifically valid data being so often interjected by the deniers. Seems like any deceitful tactic or obviously agnotistic industry source is acceptable round here in what amounts to a non debate. Where this a real scientific debate the conversation would have been held to some standard of real science, reviewed by various accredited peer reviewed processes and agreed as acceptable by a relevant organization, ( the IPCC for instance ) rather than what amounts to tobacco industry agnotists attempting to convince an unwary public that its good for you to smoke, except in this case working for the oil and gas industry and in regards to global climate change.

basically its not possible to have any kind of informed debate on science when the basics of the science involved are completely and deliberately either misunderstood or ignored in an effort to maintain an apposing unscientific position

after all, the scientist involved are in 97% agreement on this one
not much denying that eh

lends a lot of weight to the scientific analysis
rather than an emotional denial

of the tens of thousands of scientific articles and reviews that I could quote in yet another fruitless effort to establish evidence already well established by the scientific community; presented to and ignored by the deniers in this thread, Just for the sake of hopeless endeavor, Ill offer yet another confirmation of the accuracy of the ice core data and again point out that permeability is a qualifiable component within that data, that the data by and large agrees with the scientific consensus and that the mountain of evidence in agreement with the basic theory is dramatically outpacing the mole hill of evidence in disagreement

for instance

think of it this way G
if you had a student who insisted the earth is flat
would you enjoy a good laugh and move on
or would you waste endless amounts of time catering to what amounts to an emotional choice rather than an informed acceptance of a simple scientifically established concept

Ive had my laughs and only drop in for a moment

thing to remember is that both I and others tried to go through the science step by step from the beginning, in an effort to find were our disagreements began, the deniers refused to even remotely consider the science involved or even for that matter engage in the conversation and instead rambled on with obviously industry supplied disinformation. The effort to go through the science of the issue was simply not conducive to the continuation of there disbelief, so the deniers simply refuse to stick to science and instead wallow on endlessly mired in industry spin
just as they have done throughout this thread

as someone pointed out a while back
no honest scientist would bother with this
they were right
this kind of industry spin page has time and time again proven itself unworthy of an informed response

might be worth a few laughs from time to time
but hardly worthy of any additional efforts

enjoy
B



ps
just for old times sakes

kinda hard to deny the obvious correlation between co2 and temp or that the little green monster at the end of the graph is bound to cause some kind of trouble eh

and its kinda hard to deny that the ice is melting which generally happens when things are getting warmer

also a little difficult to deny that alterations in our atmospheric chemistry are having profound effects on reactions within the atmosphere






feel free to begin the panicked attempts to deny through whatever means necessary

 

1. There is no conclusive evidence that anthropogenic C02 is causing warming.
2. 97% of scientists agree that the climate is changing, not 97% of scientists agree that the human race is causing the changes. In fact 54% agree that the climate changes could well be within natural variation.
3. The evidence of AGW is compiled using computer models based on distorted data that cannot accurately predict the weather in an hour without looking out the window.
4. The IPCC is a political body started with a defined bias in its mission statement.
5. The livelihood of warmists depends on the success of their theories.
6. The debate cannot be over, there never was one.
7. Ad hominem attacks on sources do not disprove or prove the validity of an argument.
8. As the evidence begins to mount that AGW is simply a social engineering project backed up by junk science, the folks that are panicking are those who stand to be out of work,and out of credibilty.

Boston continues to post the 97% figure, it is wrong and he knows it. Then he tries to supplement his argument by authority position with a comical video that is woefully deficient on facts and reality. He also fails to mention that the Artic Ice Cap has virtually recovered to its 1979 position, the Antartic Ice Cap is increasing in weight, and temperatures are dropping for the last ten years. He goes on and on about the oil industry. They are a business, not an ideology, they are going to make lots of money regardless of the success of the AGW battle. Promoting class warfare is propaganda, not science. Besides, the amount of funding that the oil industry invests in the debate is a fraction of what the government flushes down the toilet. At least the oil companies produce something to earn their money instead of being a societal parasite bent on devolving human civilization to a level of subsistance hunter gatherer sophistication.

 

Nice video, Jimbo but to say that increases in cosmic rays as allowed by decreases in the protective magnetic field of the sun cause the Earth to warm seems like a stretch in the same way that because co² correlates with temp, co² causes increases in temp when, to me, it is just the oppposite.
I'm not suggesting that Earth affects the cosmic rays in any manner but I do think we need to be careful to not jump on any two graphs that line up. After all, we don't have a political stake in mis-representation. Our only hope against those that would destroy the West to save hope that man-made GW is real is to make sure we get it right.
If we can't totally blow GW out of the water with reason (remember who we are trying to reason with - They shoe-horn into a Prius and field a veritable army of Rasta wanna-bes and unicorn mounted college students!), then time will simply have to tell.

 

Orestes video is nothing more that a 58 minute ad hominem attack on those who refuse to swallow the KoolAid.

Some things we do know ...........

1. CO2 follows warming, acknowlegded by all except Boston
2. The Mann graph has been dumped in the waste bin by the IPCC, even they can't figure out how to use a broken hockey stick.
3. The data from the ground based weather stations is worthless because of the lack of dicipline in their placement, and the corruption of the data.
4. The data from weather balloons and satelites show that the climate is in a cooling trend.
5. Solar activity is right in line with the cooling trend
6.The net temp increase even with all rigging of the data by the alarmists crowd is still only .7C over a century.

With no evidence of anthropogenic change, and climate changes well within historical norms. Why should we listen to the alarmists whose main argument boils down to, "trust me, I'm smarter than you". That is dogma, more appropriate in the Vatican than in scientific discussions.

 

Get out your checkbook, or prepare yourself for an underground economy.....

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/i...ommentaries/climate_change_regime_immoral.pdf

 

1.
Well, CO2 follows warming...?
Assume we had an hypothetical environment with 100% stable temperature, heat absorbsion = heat loss, an atmosphere of well; something like 0,02% CO2, 20% O2, rest N2 and a little of other gases. Then if; we change no other factors than the content of CO2... to lets say; 0,035% (uhm, well to do that we'd probably would also spend a tiny amount of O2 also)... Will you expect the temperature to be stable? Decreasing? Or increasing?
Do you (or we) choose to neglect the physical properties of a gas completely?
Check www.engineeringtools.com or do a short google on that.
If we alter a composition of a gas mixture we will get a different behaviour of that gas mixture, and it will probably be safe to assume that it'll tend to go towards the physical properties of that added gas... Not rocket science. Now how much effect that again can do..? Thats another question, and I've played around with my HP15C, so I'm closer to (or more correctly; have ended up in) the "bettersafethansorry" group, where I also suspect Mr Boston is placed.

3. Temperature, land. I'got news for you; Land temperatures change, change, change. Yesterdays news. Now have you tried to make a cup of coffe, standing beside that friggin' pot, waiting for the water to boil? The water is surprisingly stable... Observed changes in water temps are much more reliable, compared to land measurments (well then again, key word here is probably; density). Now todays radio here in Norway; you can sail north of Norway, over Russia, down to Asia, nothing new in that either, but they also added this information; No icebreaker needed. Arctic ice is thinner than earlier years. A large number of glaciers are thinning/ decreasing (A fewer are gaining). Great barrier reef outside Australia, reports of serious problems due to increased temperatures. I take that as a sign that the sea temperature is mostly increasing somewhat.

"trust me, I'm smarter than you".
Ohhh....
I could've said something......didnt... damn it, I'm polite...

 

1: Do you need conclusive evidence?
Do we burn fossile fuels? Do this operation produce CO2?
What about numbers?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html (Oil consumed; barrels a day, 1 barrel results in 320 kg CO2 ( A bit uncertain on that number but a ball park figure at least)).
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-properties-d_156.html (This it the atmosphere we have)
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_1000.html (This is what we add to the atmosphere, pls note the density, gas, how many cu M3 of CO2 in one barrel, I leave that to you)
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-emission-fuels-d_1085.html (Some other info...). People are actually killing themselves in cars, in garages, but there is often no conclusive evidence that the ticker stopped by lack of oxygene or too much CO2...? At least you'll have to admit that there is a small probability present; that they die due to a local atmospheric change?

2 Arctic Ice cap Increased... Wrong! Radio today; (repeating myself here) No icebreaker needed, I heard that this information got some Norwegian sailors to alter their holyday plans by something in the area of 180°... Not sane if you ask me...

3 True. Land based ice is increasing. Hm, but there is a tiny discussion of sea ice in that area too.

4 Temps are dropping... But you have also stated that temperature measurments on land and in the atmosphere are unreliable...? So, if they are dropping; then they are reliable....:idea:

 

Arctic sea ice disappeared almost completely during the 1930's (1936 specifically, when the arctic was warmer than at any other time during the 20th century, including 1998) though this is only known anecdotally from sea captain's reports as there were neither satellites nor even significant scientific presence in the arctic at the time. Nevertheless, such reports are considered fairly reliable as sea captains are familiar with the passages they frequent and tend to report what they observe without any hidden agenda.

Jimbo

 

Knut,

it's impossible to get any significant warming from CO2 acting alone. You know this because we've been over it again and again. CO2 levels are basically at absorptive saturation at anything above 200ppm. Much higher CO2 levels in the past did not lead to catastrophic warming events.

The only way the warmers at the IPCC conjure up scary warming scenarios is by assuming a positive feedback between CO2 levels and water vapor levels by a simple thermal link to increased oceanic evaporation. Corollary to the above, is that not only CO2 but any other greenhouse agent or anything else at all that causes a perturbation to the thermal equilibrium of our atmosphere can also participate in this alleged feedback.

This corollary makes this particular corner of the hypothesis wholly testable. Richard Lindzen has been testing this part of the AGW hypothesis using archived satellite data sets to see if thermal perturbations actually reduce outgoing long wave radiation, indicating increased greenhouse effect, which would be expected if the water vapor positive feedback existed.

What he observed instead is that outgoing LW actually increases with thermal perturbations, meaning that there is indeed a feedback between water vapor and thermal perturbations, but the sign of the feedback is in fact negative, not positive.

So despite the assumptions by warmers, the greenhouse effect is in reality reduced by thermal perturbations due to a strongly negative feedback with water vapor, meaning that the climate does not exhibit an unstable equilibrium state, and that water vapor is not the amplifier of any and all thermal perturbations to the atmosphere.

Observations trump theories and assumptions every time, don't you agree, Knut?

Doesn't this make you happy, Knut?


OTOH, you'll have to find something new to wring your hands over


But don't worry, theres plenty of REAL stuff to worry over; you'll find something soon!



Jimbo

 

None of the climate realists posting here has faulted the satellite or balloon data, only the surface measurements.

Jimbo