What Do We Think About Climate Change

Boston, my friend, you don't cease to amaze me.

Do you really think that you can know the motivation behind an article?
You can not. Not in a hundred years.

The person you think is a fair dinkum "scientist" may be printing ******** to cover his ***. The one that looks like a red rag to a bull "paid by the oil companies", may be risking his job for telling the truth, and of course it can go both ways all the time.

The reality as I told you in another occasion is that you choose what you like and discard what you don't like, and that is perfectly human and understandable.
After all that is how people choose a party to vote for, a religion to adhere to, a country club to join, a brand of cars, or their wife for that matter.

Conservative government are voted in by those who like the government to leave them alone to do their business and help themselves. Labour/liberal/green/socialist are voted in by those who want the government to do something for them possibly for free.

Global warming fits a certain group of the population who have an axe to grind against either big companies, or prosperous individuals who have irritated them in the past. This is a way to get back at "them".
Sadly those behind this movement are merely using those groups for their own political purposes that are so far removed from the "save the planet" proposition as Bush junior is from marrying Sadam Husain's daughter.

Clearly what you like or desperately "want" to be true, makes you blind to an unbiased search for the truth even if it is rather obvious.
That is what makes this debate all the more frustrating and I am not referring to the debate here, but in general. Both camps have their mind set for a particular "result"...that is blast the opposition at all cost, with all at hand, including fraud, lies, falsehood, distortion, and criminal actions. The end justifies the means.

Sadly that is human nature, we have seen it from the days of the crusades to today, and as soon as this false crusade boils over lik the year 2000 bug, there will be another way to polarise the population behind some fake cause in order to make money and gain popularity for some other end to be revealed.

I think that with all your interest in this matter you have fallen short in the open mindedness area.
You camp proposes to spend trillions to send us back to the dark ages for a gain in global warming that if there at all is infinitesimal.
The loss in employment and the human cost will be astronomical and totally unjustified.
Yet you can not see it.
It's a pity really.

 

Think for a minute who gains from a "win" for the andropogenic global warming we have to do something party? (sorry religion)
Answer, the government in power who will have carte blanche for astronomical tax increases, the power companies who can increase their services to offset the taxes the government is imposing. I had 20% increase in electricity and two more 30% to come next year, yes and we have yet to pass the bill for carbon trading. In fact it will never be passed in 100 years yet the prices have already skyrocketed.
So who gains?
Do you really think that the coal miners will go broke, the oil company shut up shop and the electricity go around asking for people to hook up because all have gone green wood an kero?

Not for a minute, the big winners ARE OIL AND COAL miners and energy companies who will charge 1000% more for their goods and services and the government will not even blink before putting personal income tax and company tax up to 50%.
Save the Planet is a con and besides the fact that there is no need for the planet to be saved, this is the biggest re-arrangement of power the world has ever seen, and you are there helping them to screw the people including you for no reason whatsoever.

 

Let's see what the "good standing with the community" guys say:

NASA Study Finds Atlantic 'Conveyor Belt' Not Slowing

"New NASA measurements of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, part of the global ocean conveyor belt that helps regulate climate around the North Atlantic, show no significant slowing over the past 15 years. The data suggest the circulation may have even sped up slightly in the recent past.

The findings are the result of a new monitoring technique, developed by oceanographer Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., using measurements from ocean-observing satellites and profiling floats. The findings are reported in the March 25 issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

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

With this new technique, Willis was able to calculate changes in the northward-flowing part of the circulation at about 41 degrees latitude, roughly between New York and northern Portugal. Combining satellite and float measurements, he found no change in the strength of the circulation overturning from 2002 to 2009. Looking further back with satellite altimeter data alone before the float data were available, Willis found evidence that the circulation had sped up about 20 percent from 1993 to 2009. This is the longest direct record of variability in the Atlantic overturning to date and the only one at high latitudes.

The latest climate models predict the overturning circulation will slow down as greenhouse gases warm the planet and melting ice adds freshwater to the ocean. "Warm, freshwater is lighter and sinks less readily than cold, salty water," Willis explained.

For now, however, there are no signs of a slowdown in the circulation. "The changes we're seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle," said Willis. "The slight increase in overturning since 1993 coincides with a decades-long natural pattern of Atlantic heating and cooling."


http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-101&rn=news.xml&rst=2534

 

More from the "good standing with the community" field

“Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming”, by Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, (Climate Diagnostics Center, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, and Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Climate Dynamics, 2008)

[http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf]

This document describes the combination of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

From there:

“Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. … Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales. There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published IPCC Report......Perhaps the most important conclusion to be drawn from our analysis is that the recent acceleration of global warming may not be occurring in quite the manner one might have imagined.”

I recommend all of you a full reading of this work, not suspicious of "denialism" at all (This work was supported by the NOAA Climate Program Office)

Cheers.

 

More interesting things:

Computer Study of Cluster Mechanism of Anti-greenhouse Effect
A. Galashev. International Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering 1:1 2009

http://www.waset.org/journals/ijese/v1/v1-1-6.pdf

Abstract
Absorption spectra of infra-red (IR) radiation of the disperse water medium absorbing the most important greenhouse gases: CO2 , N2O , CH4 , C2H2 , C2H6 have been calculated by the molecular dynamics method. Loss of the absorbing ability at the formation of clusters due to a reduction of the number of centers interacting with IR radiation, results in an anti-greenhouse effect. Absorption of O3 molecules by the (H2O)50 cluster is investigated at its interaction with Cl− ions. The splitting of ozone molecule on atoms near to cluster surface was observed. Interaction of water cluster with Cl− ions causes the increase of integrated intensity of emission spectra of IR radiation, and also essential reduction of the similar characteristic of Raman spectrum. Relative integrated intensity of absorption of IR radiation for small water clusters was designed. Dependences of the quantity of weight on altitude for vapor of monomers, clusters, droplets, crystals and mass of all moisture were determined. The anti-greenhouse effect of clusters was defined as the difference of increases of average global temperature of the Earth, caused by absorption of IR radiation by free water molecules forming clusters, and absorption of clusters themselves. The greenhouse effect caused by clusters makes 0.53 K, and the antigreenhouse one is equal to 1.14 K. The increase of concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere does not always correlate with the amplification of greenhouse effect."


Atmospheric clustering, absorption and anti-greenhouse effect
A Galashev, Oksana Rakhmanova
Institute of Industrial Ecology of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Yekaterinburg, Russian Federation
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 6 (2009) 282025 doi:10.1088/1755-1307/6/8/282025

http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/6/28/282025/pdf/ees9_6_282025.pdf?ejredirect=migration

"The Earth's atmosphere is a complex dynamic system, which protects the biosphere. One of the significantfactors impacting Earth's radiation balance is the greenhouse effect. Its en-hancement is not only due to anincrease in solar activity but also due to an increase in the con-tent of gases with pronounced radiationproperties in the atmosphere. Water vapor and atmos-pheric gases, such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and others,have a decisive influence on the formation of thermal radiation fields. However, according to the LeChatelier principle, there are opposite compensating proc-esses in the atmosphere. Clustering of greenhouse gases can be considered as one of these processes. This work investigates the effect of a reduction of global temperature of the Earth's sur-face created by water clusters that form in the atmosphere. Currently there are several experi-mental works indicating the presence of an appreciable quantity of water clusters in the atmosphere. The stability of water clusters that absorb molecules of other gases depends on the type and quantity of the attached molecules. In the troposphere water clusters are formed by vapor condensation as well as from the emissions of air-traffic. The essence of the antigreenhouse effect is that due to clustering of the atmospheric water vapour, a huge number of the Earth's radiation absorption centres are lost. Thus a cluster as an uniform formation (one centre of absorp-tion) absorbs even less radiation energy than one water molecule. The antigreenhouse effect is defined as a difference of temperature changes created by water molecules that clusters consist of, and clusters themselves."


Greenhouse effect of clusterization of CO2 and CH4 with atmospheric moisture
Alexander Yevgenyevich Galashev
Environmental Chemical Letters DOI 10.1007/s10311-009-0243-9

http://www.springerlink.com/content/045026774101335p/fulltext.pdf?page=1

Abstract

"Carbon dioxide and methane are major compounds involved in global warming. The process of CO2 and CH4 molecules absorption by water clusters was investigated by the molecular dynamics method. The frequency spectra of dielectric permittivity for systems consisting of (H2O)n, (CO2)i(H2O)10 and (CH4)i(H2O)10 clusters mixed in various proportions were determined. The IR radiation absorption spectra of these systems were calculated and compared. Also, the radiating power of these systems was established. The capture of greenhouse gases’ molecules by ultra disperse water media reduces the ability of the media to absorb the Earth’s radiation, i.e., it reduces the greenhouse effect."

 

Schmidt's models, when compared to the real obsevational data, not the "adjusted" data have been so divergent from what has really happened to the climate that they fall into the realm of science fiction.

Computer models work reasonably well for industry when attempting to assess future production needs. That is because they are, within reason, working from known productions assets whose variables change little. Even then however adjustments have to be made in the production process or raw resources do not meet needs.

The industry modelers I know laugh at the idea of climate models as a fantasy built by an ego, and maintained by religious fanatics.

As far as who is more credible? After watching the circus in Washington over the last year I find it difficult to place any reliance on those who work as grant whores and parasites.

Attacking a funding source however is really irrelevent to the data and material produced, unless you can show evidence that the data and material has been compromised. In the case of the alarmists the volume of fraud defies comprehension and compilation, yet Boston has yet to post a single instance where an "industry" as he calls them, funded scientist, lied at the direction of his funding source. In fact he has never challenged the product of these scientists by refuting their results. He just posts reams and volumes of irrelevent data and minutae written by someone else that is usually not even on point and does nothing to disprove the work of the skeptics.

Finally the computer models show an alarming increase in temperature since 1998, yet Dr. Phil Jones of the East Anglia CRU says that the real observational data show no increase of any statistical significance so clearly the models are again wrong. They have been wrong on C02 measurement,glaciers, sea ice, ocean temperature,sea levels, methane, HC, NOX, CO and storm frequency and intensity and everything else they have been used for in the climate fields. In other words, they have been useless as a predictor of all the markers of climate change. The reason is both predicable and obvious. The variables of the climate are too numerous to be used with a degree of accuracy that would allow their results to be used as a valid tool of public policy. To pretend otherwise is delusional.

 

Another example of alarmist crap debunked............

The birth and death of an island in the Bay of Bengal
By Nils-Axel Mörner

In 1970, the Bay of Bengal was struck by the very powerful Bhola Cyclone. This was a truly disastrous event with a casualty in the order of 500,000 people. This event also caused
severe coastal damage. Vast quantities of sediment were set in suspension, and there were significant turbidity flows.

At the boarder between India and Bangladesh, these sediments transported down the river accumulated in a muddy sand-bar that grew into an island. This newly-created island
came to be called South Talpatti or New Moore Island.

There is nothing strange in this. Islands come and go for local reasons triggered by sudden events and longer-term dynamic forces.

On 25 March, 2010, it was suddenly announced that the island had disappeared. Many, including scientists (for example Sugata Hazra, professor in oceanography
at Jadavpur University in Calcutta), took the island’s disappearance as an expression of a rapidly rising sea level.

The fact, however, is that it has nothing to do with any global sea level rise, but is attributable to local dynamic factors operating in this part of the Bay of Bengal.

So, the Island of South Talpatti (New Moor Island) was born in 1970 and killed in 2010. The island had a short lifetime of only 40 years. The ultimate cause of its birth was cyclone damage. The cause of its death is likely to be local dynamic influences operating in this part of the huge delta, and it is surely not an effect of a rapid global sea-level rise.

Over the last 40 years we record a virtually fully stable eustatic sea level, even in the Sundarban delta of Bangladesh. The disappearance of the island is by no means a sign of
global sea-level rise



Nils-Axel Mörner, born 1938, is the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University. He retired in 2005.[1] He was president of the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) Commission on Neotectonics (1981–1989). He headed the INTAS (International Association for the promotion of cooperation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union) Project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997–2003).

 

The real value of computer models is their ability to take any data and show a trend. The problem with that of course is who and where the data comes from. The following explains how the IPCC used one obscure measurement to make a prediction on sea level that flies in the face of all other data. This one measurement was used in all the computer models on sea level and is responsible for the faulty data backing up the alarmist cries of gloom and doom,(and flooding).............

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

 

Another little "oopsie" on modeling.................

Saturday, December 05, 2009

Climategate and Mediocre mathematics,A schoolboy howler

The Climategate saga continues to provide interesting revelations.Whilst the emails are deeply disturbing,a damning revelation that the code reveals problems of the simplest form are revealing of the standard of skill by these "modelers"

One of the simplest observations e have is the earth is a sphere,from the circumference we can deduce the surface area of the planet around 510,072,000 km2.

It seems an incorrect circumference measurement is used in the ?code of the UEA.

As was reported on BBC 2's Newsnight on Wednesday, UK programmer John Graham-Cumming has begun some analysis of the software code contained in the files released two weeks ago. So far, he has documented 4 bugs that he has found on his weblog here. It is impossible to ascertain at this time the effect those bugs would have on calculations performed with temperature records, but Graham-Cummings speculates:

"So some information is lost for data being plotted near the 180 degrees line. Admittedly, that's in the middle of the Pacific Ocean (although it does cut through some land mass). But if there are any ocean temperature measurements at the 'edge of the world' then bits of their data isn't being taken into account.

I wonder what, if any, impact these three bugs have on the output of this program.

PS. There's actually a fourth problem with this code. The number 110.0. It's being used to convert from kilometres to degrees of longitude and latitude. The same number is used for both even though the Earth isn't a perfect sphere.

The code is using a value of 39,600 km for the circumference of the Earth, whereas the mean value is actually 40,041 km. But, hey, what's an error of 1% between friends?"

I find it interesting that the software used to measure global warming has a 1% error in the Earth's circumference. I find it odd that they didn't adjust the numbers appropriately when converting kilometres to longitude and latitude.

Its worse then we thought.





Now it's off to work on my addition to my carbon footprint, a 31ft Trojan SeaRaider, unlike some here, I have a boat, actually 2!

 

could be because they are such impeccable sources with tremendous credentials

you dont like them because they like I do not agree with you but that does not negate the fine standing those sources hold within the community

 

sounds like your primarily concerned with the economics and politics of tax fraud and not the science of climate change

as I have expressed many times I do not think a carbon tax is going to do anything
its a response by typically greedy people to any crisis
find a way to make more money off of it

why do you think I posted old George Carlins flicker about how corrupt politics is and why

simple reality is we have a very real crisis looming over us and some few shysters are going to take advantage of that

you would have us throw out the baby with the bath water

you are burning down the house to kill a flea as the Chinese would say

speaking of which you might like this one which in a lot of ways I agree with



and if you really want a laugh

 

You're so funny, my absurd and naïve Climatist!

What about the work of the "good standing in the community guys" I mentioned at posts 5444 and 5445? Could you please comment?

 

And perhaps you can also enlighten our obtuse minds by telling us your 'highly scientific' opinion on the works at post 5446...

 

a response to post 5444 will take a bit of time digging up some data and I've limited time right now

but a response to post 5445 is easy
your link doesn't work

try this one
http://www.springerlink.com/content/au9x40l201105273/


going a bit farther than just the abstract you might read the introduction

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=au9x40l201105273&size=largest

which is far less spurious in nature to the overall concept
and
not only admits the validity of warming due to co2 but goes on to specifically suggest its findings are limited to LOCAL phenomenon
point being that we have a global crisis
local weather anomaly patterns are simply not that important

my question to you is
do you read these articles before you present them

cheers
B

 

Yes, of course I read them and understand them, what you clearly don't.

Ooops! I almost forgot: please do not avoid to comment my post 5429