Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[a_majoor]

Wonder how much coverage this gets?

http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
By James Taylor | Forbes - Wed, Jul 27, 2011

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

 

[a_majoor]

Interesting idea as to what triggers ice ages:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128245.000-ironrich-dust-fuelled-4-million-years-of-ice-ages.html?full=true&print=true

Iron-rich dust fuelled 4 million years of ice ages

DUST is all that's needed to plunge the world into an ice age. When blown into the sea, the iron it contains can fertilise plankton growth on a scale large enough to cause global temperatures to drop. The finding adds support to the idea of staving off climate change by simulating the effects of dust - perhaps by sprinkling the oceans with iron filings.

Iron-rich dust falling on the ocean has long been known to spark blooms of plankton, and researchers suspect the process could have intensified the ice ages that have occurred over the past few million years.

The thinking goes that, during warm periods, much of the Southern Ocean is an oceanic desert because it lacks the iron crucial for plankton growth. That changes at the start of ice ages, when a wobble in the planet's orbit causes an initial cooling that dries the continents, generates dust storms - particularly in central Asia - and sends dust onto the surface of the Southern Ocean.

The plankton that then bloom take the carbon they need from the water, causing the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to compensate. This cools the atmosphere further, creating yet more dust-producing regions, and the cycle continues, sinking Earth into an ice age.

When the planetary wobbles, known as Milankovitch cycles, eventually choke off the cooling, the feedback goes into reverse: continents warm, dust storms subside, the Southern Ocean is starved of iron, and CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise again.

Evidence for the theory can be found in ice cores from Antarctica, which show lots of dust in the air coinciding with low atmospheric CO2 levels during recent ice ages. But this record goes back only 800,000 years.

Now Alfredo Martinez-Garcia at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and colleagues have used marine sediment cores taken from an area of the Atlantic Ocean just north of the Southern Ocean to look back 4 million years. They say dust levels have been twice as high during deep glaciations throughout that time (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature10310).

"Dust deposition in the Southern Ocean increased with the emergence of the deep glaciations that characterise the late Pleistocene," says Martinez-Garcia.

John Shepherd of the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, UK, says the study "confirms the magnitude of the role of iron" in the onset of severe glacial conditions.

Fertilising the oceans with iron filings has been suggested as one method to combat climate change. So far, however, real-world tests have created only small blooms of plankton.

Shepherd says the tests have been on too small a scale to demonstrate any lasting effect. "It would be of great scientific interest to do some larger-scale longer-term experiments." The new evidence, he says, suggests that it should work.

 

[ModlrMike]

Can we start with the Sea Shepherd?

 

[Haletown]

more torpedoes into the side of the mighty SS Global Warming Scam.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/05/the-emily-litella-moment-for-climate-science-and-co2/#more-44593

The podcast is worth listening to

http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/podcast/global-emission-of-carbon-dioxide-the-contribution-from-natural-sources/

 

[Haletown]

Hilarious stitch-up from Australia of the global warming "the sky is falling" mantra used to scare people into going all greenie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbOEUFKh-SU&feature=player_embedded

 

[Furniture]

From the BBC yet more research showing that the climate is far more complex than the global warming prophets would have us believe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14408930

The article basically points out that as temperatures change the global circulation changes, which prevents the ice free arctic senarios from happening.

 

[Illini]

Consider the fact that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and constitutes ~1.5% of the atmosphere
on average.  This 1.5% is expressed as weight to weight, the standard for chemistry.  In contrast,
environmental zealots show carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere as "PPM" or parts per million.

If you look up the Keeling Curve, you see that atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from ~310 ppm
fifty or sixty years ago to ~380 ppm today. 

The Keeling Curve is designed to move you to action through fear.  My we must reverse this dangerous
upward curve, everyone is supposed to say.  And of course tens of millions of gullible people do just that.

However, if you convert 1.5% water vapor by weight to parts per million, you get something on the order of
23,000.

So you are supposed to believe that ~1 part per million change in 23,000 parts per million is driving climate
change?

Be sure to calculate the percentage that 1 over 23,000 represents and then tell me where such an insignificant
change makes such monumental, indeed catastrophic changes that we should all stay at home and never travel
anywhere again.

This is what the environmental hypocrites order the rest of us to do by virtue of their demand to "cut carbon dioxide
emissions 80% BY 2050" even as they carry on as usual.  Take Al Gore, please.  Or consider the countless number
of environmental conferences worldwide, attended almost exclusively at taxpayer expense.

Why don't they videoconference, you may ask?  Well why bother, really, when chumps like all of you are paying the
air fare and hotel bill and expensive dinners.

Google environmental conferences and see the extensive list for yourself.

Then next time you see a Sierra magazine, gaze upon their extensive list of foreign vacations, all taken by flying
gas-guzzling jets all over the world.  Get a Sierra Club patch for climbing 25, 50, or 100 peaks, and remember
kids, you don't get to those peaks by hiking to them.

 

[Haletown]

WARNING!  Do not drink coffee while watching this . . your keyboard will be in jeopardy.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/170f627ee7/stop-the-environment?

 

[Northalbertan]

:rofl:  Glad you put the warning up.  Hillarious!

 

[Redeye]

Thanks to Politifact, a fairly good overview of the non-existent controversy:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/14/tim-pawlenty/do-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming/

 

[Furniture]

Asking the IPCC if global warming is man made is similar to asking the Pope if God exists...

Sensors today are far more exact than they have ever been, and automation has removed the human element from temperature and pressure observations. I can assure you that at +30 or -30 most human observers reading thermometers aren't putting much effort into it. Even less effort if they are making minimum wage and doing observations for a supervisor that really doesn't care about quality control.

I can assure you that the psychrometer motors and thermometers being used today are far more accurate than than the ones being used in 1850, and as pointed out in a previous post many of the climatological sites that are recording higher temperatures are not set up according to standard.

 

[JBG]

Hilarious stitch-up from Australia of the global warming "the sky is falling" mantra used to scare people into going all greenie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbOEUFKh-SU&feature=player_embedded

Satire doesn't get any better than that.

 

[Flip]

At long last , and after some delay.......


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/#more-45793

This could be the end of the AGW political movement.

 

[Haletown]

At long last , and after some delay.......


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/#more-45793

This could be the end of the AGW political movement.

Regardless, the AGW religious movement will linger on much longer.

 

[ModlrMike]

This could be the end of the AGW political movement.

I wouldn't be so sure just yet:

Climate cycles blamed for driving civil conflicts

 

[Kirkhill]

I wouldn't be so sure just yet:

Climate cycles blamed for driving civil conflicts

It seems reasonable to me that the climate (like its shorter term cousin the weather) will influence behaviour.  It also seems reasonable to me that we should be doing what we can to understand both to the extent that we can predict, within defined limits of uncertainty, what is coming down the road.

We should then invest in those activities which will offset the predicted negative effects:  Build dams and distillation systems and pipelines  to supply water , as a for instance.    Or, if circumstances permit and the neighbours don't complain, allow people to move to more salubrious surrounds.

We should also keep "cash on hand" to deal with the known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

We shouldn't waste money on "prevention" when the preventive mechanisms are poorly defined.  That is akin to pushing on a rope and expecting a ship to undock itself as a result.

 

[a_majoor]

Real science in action (and the response of the alarmists is instructive):

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/columnists/Science+settled/5315908/story.html

Science now settled
TwitterEmail
inShare

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post · Aug. 27, 2011 | Last Updated: Aug. 27, 2011 5:24 AM ET

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won't be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun - not human activities - as the controller of climate on Earth.

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world's largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth's atmosphere.

In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done - demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth's atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun's magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere (the stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, "I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible." He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory - they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.

The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory's importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber - he called it CLOUD, for "Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets."

But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had - not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.

"The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century," Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth's temperature.

The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Dane's groundbreaking theory.

Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years - this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it - because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid "the highly political arena of the climate change debate," telling them "to present the results clearly but not interpret them" and to downplay the results by "mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters." The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby's study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph - only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.

CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the Holy Grail of climate science. But the religion of climate science won't yet permit a celebration of the find.

LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

- Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.

 

[Haletown]

gotta love the Australian sense of humour

http://www.mp3.com.au/Forms/ArtistProfile.aspx?ProfileId=282145


hit play button mid upper right side

and another one to drive the greenies & ecoloonies crazy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWiKvNDTjB4&feature=player_embedded

That guitar player looks just like Mann.

Good Monday so far in the annoy a Warmista category

 

[Redeye]

Wonder how much coverage this gets?

http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

Pretty much none. And deservedly so. It was just blown right out of the water as wildly misrepresenting a study - so much that the journal's editor has resigned.  Oops.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201109020008

 

[Haletown]

Oh boy, MediaMatters has decided the study was flawed.  Well that settles it.  Because  MediaMatters doesn't have an agenda, except of course to still believe Obama has an IQ over 90.

If the paper was so flawed, why wasn't it pulled? It has not been pulled from publication. The paper stands.

The normal procedure if a paper is disputed is letters are sent to the Journal, the errors revealed and then the original author has a chance for a rebuttal.

This normal process wasn't followed. Why?

Then counter papers are published and the normal process is to include the original author  as a peer reviewer. The original  paper took two long years of tedious peer review and many attempts to derail it.  The counter paper took three weeks to get through peer review and they didn't ask Dr. Spencer to bee on the Peer Review team. 

Every paper published is challenged and "flaws" are found, but this is a witch hunt.


The real question is why did Wagner resign, who pressured him and why.  His resignation email says he was surprised that some of the peer reviewers were sympathetic to being skeptical of global warming.  Two years it took and he wasn't aware of the reviewers professional records?  Hilarious.

Did Wagner cave to pressure from the Warmongers, threats to be out of the loop, kicked off the AGW Gravy Train, not invited to all the nice meetings in Bali? 

Time will tell.


If the best you can do is MediaMatters you really need to expand your horizons.

Here's Judith Curry on the matter . . . and she's very highly respected and a bit of a Warmer

http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/05/update-on-spencer-braswell-part-ii/#more-4805

Here's Roger Pielke Snr  - and he's one of the most respected Climate Scientists.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/comments-on-the-dessler-2011-grl-paper-cloud-variations-and-the-earths-energy-budget/