What Do We Think About Climate Change

Guillermo,

On the Anthony Watts site a short while ago, there was debate that the Denmark Strait between Iceland and Greenland might be closed by ice this winter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark_Strait

In May 1941, the Denmark Strait was almost closed by pack ice. The narrow passage between Greenland and Iceland was a gap only 70 miles wide.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

If this does happen, the two sites below will make interesting reading.

http://en.vedur.is/sea-ice/sea
http://www.seaice.de/

Regards,

Perry

 

It seems artic ice is growing now, but in August it was like this. Image is said to be from exactly the North Pole.

Cheers.

 

Carry the battle to the foe . No quarter!

Place your bets chaps.

http://www.the-thinking-man.com/global-warming.html

I thought I'd get out of my cage and write to my Member of Parliament, Nick Hurd. http://www.nickhurd.com/

Dear Mr Hurd,

First things first. You should know that I do not accept the IPCC conclusions about AGW and I certainly do not accept that the Conservatives were at all sensible in supporting the Climate Change Bill. This is because continuing and rigorous scientific research is unequivocally demonstrating that the predictions produced from IPCC computer modelling are not being supported by observational data around the globe.

You will see below, a link to a 4th November letter sent to Chairman Dingell of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, US House of Representatives, Washington DC 20515-6115 by Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Economics, College of Management & Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2M5. The letter is in response to a request for additional information by the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Response.to.Dingell.EAQ.pdf

Professor McKitrick gave testimony to the Committee in June 2008. http://ross.mckitrick.googlepages.com/#new

You will see that the professor enjoys a great reputation for intellectual honesty and I would urge you to familiarise yourself with his work and bring it to the attention of your senior colleagues. Yes, the science is complicated and difficult to understand, but I would expect that any politician who is representing his voters, should have a very good scientific grasp of the facts, if he is voting in the Commons on scientific matters, that affect our economy.

The simple fact that global temperatures have cooled to 1979 values, should prompt you to take note of the consequences of your actions. AGW is not supported by the evidence and recklessly hoping that that "inconvenient truth" can be hidden under a tissue of mendacious calumnies will not serve to stop your voters considering their options at the next election.

Yours truly,

Perry Debell

 

Excerpted from the McKitrick Report, cited above:

"To summarize thus far, all the models which have been used for the IPCC and CCSP reports embed
parameterizations that yield the following predictions:

» The troposphere over the tropics should exhibit greater warming (more than double the rate) than
the troposphere over the polar regions.

» The effects induced by greenhouse gases are so large relative to other forcings (positive and
negative) that the total pattern is predominantly a reflection of the contribution of greenhouse
gases.

» The tropical troposphere should have been heating up at a rate of at least 0.25 oC/decade over the
past few decades in response to historical greenhouse gas emissions. A middle-range warming
projection scenario in the IPCC report predicts warming of about 0.5 oC/decade should now be
observable in the tropical mid-troposphere...

From the color coding one can readily tell that, like the satellites, this balloon record exhibits no
overall warming pattern in the tropical troposphere: instead there is slight cooling at lower altitudes,
and minimal warming at the upper altitudes. The tropospheric warming is at a lower rate than in the troposphere as a whole and lower in comparison to the North Pole region. The CCSP text (fn 66, p.
115) points out that this data span includes the ‘end-point effect’ of the powerful 1998-1999 El Nino
so the absence of tropical tropospheric warming is an even more conspicuous discrepancy with the
models."


As I mentioned in an earlier post, all the models (and basic greenhouse theory) suggest that the tropical troposphere will be the area most affected by greenhouse warming; if you can't find the 'fingerprint' for greenhouse warming in the tropical troposphere, it can't be found.

Jimbo

 

Jimbo,

Good quotation from Philip Stott.

“‘Global warming’ is sub-prime science, sub-prime economics, and sub-prime politics, and it could well go down with the sub-prime mortgage.”

Read on McDuff:

http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global...ies/2008/9/21_Global_Warming’s_Boom_Bust.html

All his writings are brilliant.

As Are John Brignell's.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2008 November.htm

Best wishes,

Perry

 

More voices on the "Cool Brigade":

Canadian Professor: Prepare for Global Cooling
Excerpted from: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/21/123227.shtml


"Climate stability has never been a feature of planet earth,” explains R. Timothy Patterson professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University in an article in the Financial Post.

"The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3 C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thousand-year-long ‘Younger Dryas’ cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6 C in a decade — 100 times faster than the past century's.”


Patterson explained that an extensive scientific project he conducted for his government regarding the health of the Canadian fishing industry yielded results that concerned not just the condition of the native fishery, but how solar activity regulates climate.


The research that involved taking core samples of mud at the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords used sophisticated technology that enabled him and his team to collect more than 5,000 years' worth of mud. "Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons,” he explained.


Briefly, the research showed "a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called proxies ),” a find, he wrote, that is not unique since hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators.

Among his conclusions:

"I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.”


In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental Researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.


- "Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today, and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry, and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.”


- "In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet."


- "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the little ice age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada.”

Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, a prolific researcher and one of Israel's top young scientists who was cited by Patterson, no longer accepts the logic of man-made global warming. "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming,” Shariv wrote. "But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media."

According to Dr. Shariv there is no concrete evidence — only speculation — that manmade greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence.


"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, adding that the sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate — nor will cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.


Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Shaviv states.


Finally, an article formally located at climatecentral.org, now found at iceagenow.com, states that should solar activity take a dive tomorrow, the temperatures would cool significantly.


"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again,” the article avers. "In fact, we should be more afraid of a cooling trend because of a solar minimum that will peak in 2030 that could be fairly large. As we saw from a minor solar minimum in the mid 1900s, the earth suddenly started to cool. If we were to have even a medium sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had.


This was written in June 2007.
Cheers.

 

Manhattan Declaration

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change
“Global warming” is not a global crisis
http://www.climatescienceinternational.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=54


"We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend –

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.


That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.


Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008."

 

The Skeptics Handbook:
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skepticshandbook1-4.pdf

I rather prefer "Cool Brigade", "Coolists" or "Cooliests", to "Skeptics". Don't you?

Cheers.

 

Evolution Bites Back On The Tube.

This next link is placed here, very gingerly indeed. It is NOT part of the topic of this thread, but I use it as an example of just how the strangest scientific discoveries can surprise and amaze open minded individuals, such as me for example.

I had absolutely no idea that when the first underground railway was built in London, such an intriguing event would take place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_and_Metropolitan_District_Railways

That it could and did, is not the issue for me, just that only now have we the tools and the understanding to recognise the event. :idea: :idea:

Intrigued:?: I do hope so:!:

Here is the extract:

Let me, therefore, introduce you to a horrible new critter, the ‘London Underground Mosquito’, a species of mosquito in the genus Culex which has evolved in the dark tunnels of the Tube, the London Metro - a bit like Gollum really. Originally, this nasty wee biter was given the name, Culex ‘molestus’, because it assaulted terrified Londoners huddling in the Underground as a refuge against bombing during the Blitz. Today, it attacks workers repairing the track and the stations. Regrettably, its original name is not legitimate because this had already been attached a long time ago to an Australian species of mosquito, Culex molestus Forskal, 1775. We will need another name. How about Culex eustoniensis or monumentus, or even Culex troglodytes?


Recent research indicates that the ‘London Underground Mosquito’ has evolved from a widespread overground, bird-biting species, Culex pipiens, some time since the construction of the London Underground, the first line of which, the Metropolitan Railway, was opened on January 10, 1863. The evidence for this distinctive beast has been well-documented by Katharine Byrne and Richard A. Nichols (Institute of Zoology, Regents Park, London) [see: “Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations”, Heredity (1999), 82, 7–15; doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6884120].


In their fascinating study, genetic variation was quantified between surface-dwelling populations of Culex pipiens and the so-called ‘molestus’ form found in the London Underground. The researchers discovered that the surface and subterranean populations were genetically distinct, with no evidence of gene flow between closely adjacent populations of the different forms, whereas there was little differentiation between the various populations of each separate form. The substantially-reduced heterozygosity in the Underground populations, and their allelic composition, suggest that colonization of the Underground occurred only once, or perhaps a few times at the most. Interestingly, breeding experiments demonstrated compatibility between the different Underground populations, but not with those breeding above ground, although there was some evidence of greater gene flow and a mixing of ‘molestus’ and ‘pipiens’ traits in the south of the species range. The Underground form has evolved quite different behaviour patterns (e.g., human-biting, not bird-biting), while the two forms are difficult to mate, and exhibit genetic drift. ENDS>

I wonder what other fast evolving bugs there are out there.:?:









http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global...ntries/2008/9/16_Biting_The_Creationists.html

 

Actually there was a fellow called Charles Darwin who published a book on this. From memory I believe it is called "On the Origin of Species". It was published quite a while ago. He was inspired by his observations on variation in life forms across the Galapagos Islands.

Insects are really good for demonstrating the principles involved because they have very short breeding cycles. My son breeds fruit flies for the purpose of testing chemicals and drugs. He has done work on fly population immune response to chemicals for current generation and future generations. Some of the work is related to cancer research. Means he does weekend work because their breeding cycle is something like 11 days, Just does not fit the normal working week.

On the same topic he has commented that the motor car is quite an effective tool for natural selection for the human race in modern times. Those who drink and drive tend to have a short life. Often do not make it to breeding stage.

Rick W

 

Yes, but other than this (my take exactly) we are busily working at destroying the evolution of humans by circumventing natural selection. One wonders where this path leads and how you deal with such questions, should you choose too, given our beliefs and morals. Tricky territory.... we are never going to let nature take her course, so where does this course we are following lead?

 

Don't worry Gorilla, you're bound for extinction in the coming Ice Age! Natural selection working.....

Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years

Cheers.

 

Perry,
Could it be that nobody cared a damn thing about the 'Culex pipiens', because it only bit birds, but now that it bites humans in the Underground, it just suffered a name switch to 'molestus'...?

Cheers.

 

Thanks for that last line Guillermo. That is just the kind of link that sumarizes where I have come to in the debate.

 

MB,

Humans culling themselves is natural selection, for humans.! It's what we do!

Paradox? NO!

Perry