Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

I'm helping the Universe!!!

"I'm helping the Universe!"   This is a quote from a current automobile commercial about a car that uses less fuel and therefore the generic Asian actress raises her hands in the air through the sunroof while providing the aforementioned quote.   She is helping the Universe?

Now that is dumb on so many levels that it boggles the mind.   The Universe needs your HELP?!   What did the Universe ever do without you?   Does it occur to anyone that this is to some extent an attitude of worship?   That the Green ideology is being promoted in association with the ridiculous idea that mankind is able to cause the Earth to become dangerously overheated.    Anthropic Global Warming?   Really?   

If I didn't know it was happening, I would think someone was making a sequel to Dumb and Dumber only with scientists and academics instead of a couple of clownish twenty-something guys.   Darwinism?  Manmade Global Warming?   How long before we set up altars to worship the Sun and the Moon and Mother Earth?   The dumbing-down of the public is led by the propaganda for Darwinism and then the cherry on top is the myth of manmade global warming aka AGW.  

The following is a little real science from real scientists so you will not be taken in by the hype.   Beginning with esteemed scientist Climatologist and former NASA bigwig Dr. Roy Spencer:

GW 101

Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell

Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (“IR”) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter.

Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.

Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on “low”. The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)

Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)

BUT…everything this else in the climate system probably WON’T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipitation systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming. These other changes are called “feedbacks,” and the sum of all the feedbacks in the climate system determines what is called ‘climate sensitivity’. Negative feedbacks (low climate sensitivity) would mean that manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability. But if feedbacks are sufficiently positive (high climate sensitivity), then manmade global warming could be catastrophic.

Obviously, knowing the strength of feedbacks in the climate system is critical; this is the subject of most of my research. Here you can read about my latest work on the subject, in which I show that feedbacks previously estimated from satellite observations of natural climate variability have potentially large errors. A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system.

Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved. Here you can read about my favorite candidate: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

~~~~~~~~~

Also from Dr. Spencer:

2,000 Years of Global Temperatures



This graph shows the average of 18 non-tree ring proxies of temperature from 12 locations around the Northern Hemisphere, published by Craig Loehle in 2007, and later revised in 2008. It clearly shows that natural climate variability happens, and these proxies coincide with known events in human history.

Loehle also published in 2008 a paper that described why tree rings can not be trusted as a proxy for past temperature variations. Tree ring data have what is called a “divergence problem” in the late 20th Century where the tree ring data data suggests cooling, when in fact there has been warming. This, by itself, should cast serious doubt on whether tree ring reconstructions (such as Michael Mann’s famous “hockey stick” curve) can be used to estimate past global temperature variability.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And even more information follows.   Don't be afraid to question the party line.   The ruling paradigm is often wrong!

Alarmists refuse to take on skeptical geologists

By Tom Harris

Anyone not already familiar with the stance of geologists towards the global warming scare would have been shocked by the conference at the University of Ottawa at the end of May. In contrast to most environmental science meetings, climate skepticism was widespread among the thousand geoscientists from Canada, the United States and other countries who took part in GAC-MAC 2011 (the Joint Annual Meeting of the Geological Association of Canada, the Mineralogical Association of Canada, the Society of Economic Geologists and the Society for Geology Applied to Mineral Deposits).

The lead symposium of the conference, Earth climate: past, present, future, was especially revealing. Chaired by University of Toronto geology professor Andrew Miall, the session description starts: “The scientific debate about climate change is far from over. Some of the projections of climate change and its consequences contained in the 2007 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the United Nations’ IPCC) have been called into question. This symposium will address some of these issues and present a geological perspective on the scientific debate.”

The talks were from “climate rationalists,” defined by Australian geology professor Bob Carter of James Cook University as “persons who are critical (on balanced scientific grounds) of the IPCC’s alarmism … reflecting the primacy that such persons give to empirical data and thinking. The climate rationalist approach contrasts markedly with the untestable worlds of computer virtual reality that so many climate alarmists now inhabit.”

Leading off the GAC-MAC climate symposium was fellow Australian, Ian Plimer, professor in the School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering at the University of Adelaide. In a keynote presentation entitled Human-induced climate change: Why I am skeptical, Plimer completely dismantled the greenhouse-gas-driven climate-change hypothesis. He showed how climate has varied naturally on all time scales and how recent changes are not unusual. Plimer explained the lack of meaningful correlation between the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) and planetary warming and cooling, and how “climate models throw no new light on climate processes.” He concluded, “Pollution kills, CO2 is plant food, H2O vapour is the main greenhouse gas…. Humans can adapt to future changes.”

Following Plimer were 14 other climate presentations by leading geoscientists. Henrik Svensmark of the National Space Institute in Denmark spoke about how cosmic ray variations in the atmosphere are influencing climate by changing the microphysics of clouds. University of Ottawa emeritus professor Ján Veizer presented his research describing the role of the Sun and water vapour on CO2 and climate change. Calgary geophysicist Norm Kalmanovitch showed how satellite radiation measurements demonstrate that the “enhanced greenhouse effect” from greenhouse gas emissions has never even existed to any measurable extent. Carleton University researcher Hafida El Bilali showed how her work with paleoclimatologist professor Tim Patterson revealed that variations in the output of the Sun have had major influences on regional climate for the past nine millennia.

And so it continued. Although one speaker presented information that was consistent with IPCC claims, no other presentation in the symposium supported the UN’s human-caused dangerous global warming hypothesis. In the discussion period following the talks, climate rationalists decried the lack of media or public attention to the symposium or their research findings. In the exhibit hall, few participants seemed interested in human-caused global warming. The catastrophic messages that so overwhelm other climate-related conferences were nowhere to be found.

Where were all the other scientist supporters of climate alarmism? Did they not know that climate was a major focus of this, the largest geologic conference in the country?

They knew. According to Miall, even though some were directly invited, they either refused to participate or ignored the invitation. “The people on the ­IPCC side generally will not debate,” explained Miall. “Anything that’s brought up that they disagree with, they say has been dealt with and is no longer considered important, or is a minor effect. This is often quite wrong.”

In the Q&A following the public lecture at last June’s Canadian Meteorological and Ocean Society (CMOS)/Canadian Geophysical Union Congress in Ottawa, the prospect of a public debate between the two sides was put to keynote speaker Warwick Vincent of Laval University. Vincent was supportive, as was a CMOS past president communicated with later. Yet, when I approached CMOS executives and directors about taking the steps necessary to arrange such a public event, the responses were negative to the point of abuse and nothing transpired.

This was perhaps not surprising. Proposals for a proper climate science debate have been opposed by CMOS leaders for a long time. As early as 1990, the chairman of the CMOS congress scientific committee, Tad Murty (then a senior research scientist with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ Institute of Ocean Sciences) tried to arrange a global-warming debate. But it never happened. Murty cites a “lack of enthusiasm” from other committee members as the reason.

When the Kyoto Protocol was created in December 1997, long-time CMOS member Madhav Khandekar (then just retired from his research scientist position at Environment Canada) highlighted several uncertainties in IPCC science and called for an open debate on the issue in the CMOS Bulletin. His article, Global warming & climate change in Canada: A need for an open scientific debate, was completely ignored by CMOS executives and its membership at large.

At this week’s congress in Victoria, CMOS, like many organizations of its ilk, still maintains a rigid stance of climate catastrophilia. The congress includes sessions described with clearly mistaken statements such as “Recent research has highlighted the irreversibility of CO2-induced climate change on centennial timescales …..” Other, less extreme but also unjustified assertions abound: “It has become widely recognized that under a changing climate, the frequency and intensity of meteorological/hydrological extreme events and associated damage costs would more likely increase in the 21st century.”

The narrow-mindedness of CMOS and other climate alarmists matters because they have the ear of the mass media, most of which uncritically reports on CMOS’ statements that the science is settled and debate unnecessary. Recent surveys show that the public is highly influenced by these assertions and so seriously flawed CMOS messages are incorporated into government pronouncements.

Miall maintains that the views of geoscientists are crucial for a proper understanding of climate.

“This should have been accepted practice all along, not because geoscientists are necessarily right, but because this should be the normal process of science,” said Miall. “The idea that any science is ‘finished’ violates all the norms of the science process, which should, by definition, be permanently open to new data and new ideas. The history of science is full of examples of so-called ‘normal science’ that is shown to be wrong on the basis of a single critical piece of data or a new idea. That’s all we were trying to do at the GAC meeting — keep our minds open.”

Uncomfortable though it may be for geoscientists, society needs them to speak out forcefully now. Otherwise, the climate alarm, its science failing but the movement still heavily funded, will stagger on, leading society into wasting billions of dollars more and destroying millions of jobs worldwide.

Financial Post

Tom Harris is the executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition.
Short summary: Climate scientists not interested in debating geoscientists as reported in the Financial Post section of the National Post

Story title: Canadian Climate Scientists and Canadian Geophysicists – not birds of a feather

~~~~~~~~~

Ottawa 2011
Technical Program


SY1: Earth climate: past, present, future
Sponsored by / Parrainé par: /
Organizers / Organisateurs: Andrew Miall (U. Toronto)
Room / Salle: Montpetit MNT201

Date: 5/26/2011
Time: 8:20 AM
Presenter: Ian Plimer

Keynote (40 min): Human-induced climate change: Why I am skeptical

Plimer, I., University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia, ian.plimer@adelaide.edu.au

Climate cycles are of galactic (143 my), orbital (100,000, ~41,000 and ~21,000 yr), solar (1,500, 210, 87, 22 and 11 yr), oceanic decadal (~30 yr) and lunar tidal (~18.6 yr) origin. Sporadic climate changes are caused by super volcanoes, supernoval eruptions, tectonism and possibly impacts. Since the Hadean, Earth has been degassing CO2 and CH4 from plutonism, volcanism and metamorphism, before, during and after volcanic eruptions from gas vents, hot springs and craters. Submarine degassing occurs from at least 3.4 million off-axis basaltic volcanoes and from the 64,000 km strike length of mid ocean ridges. Submarine CO2 dissolves in cool high-pressure bottom waters for degassing to the atmosphere thousands of years later.

Ice on Earth is rare. Planet Earth has been warmer and wetter than at present >80% of time and, since late Archaean, atmospheric CO2 has decreased from ~30%v to 0.039%v. The decrease in CO2 results from the long-term biota-assisted sequestration into carbonate rocks and altered rocks. In former times of high atmospheric CO2, oceans were not acid, there was no runaway greenhouse and the rate of change of temperature, sea level and ice waxing and waning was no different from the present. Doubling or quadrupling of CO2 will have very little effect on temperature unless atmospheric CO2 residence times increase by two orders of magnitude. To argue that temperature and sea level are increasing depends on when measurements first started. Since 1842, it has been known that coral atolls rise with rising sea level. Coastal planning based on ‘global sea level rise’ ignores compaction, sedimentation and tectonism.

Six major ice ages since the Palaeoproterozoic were all initiated when atmospheric CO2 was higher than now. CO2 increases follow temperature rises during deglaciation. Temperature decreases (1880-1910, 1940-1976, 1998-present) show no correlation of temperature with CO2 increase, therefore no causation. Ongoing Milankovitch, solar and PDO cycles will lead to another glaciation as part of the present ice age that started at 34 Ma.

Humans have adapted to live on ice, in mountains, in the desert, in the tropics and at sea level and can adapt to future changes. During interglacials, humans have created wealth; populations grow; glaciation is heralded by famine, starvation, disease, depopulation. Humans, although not the dominant biomass of Earth, have changed the surface of the planet. Pollution kills, CO2 is plant food, H2O vapour is the main greenhouse gas. Climate models throw no new light on climate processes.
~~~~~~~

Everything you've heard about fossil fuels may be wrong

~~~~~~~~

Global Warming Conference

Restoring  the Scientific  Method

The Heartland Institute will host its Sixth International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC on June 30 – July 1, 2011 at the Marriott Wardman Park, 2660 Woodley Road NW.

Dozens of think tank cosponsors and hundreds of scientists will gather in an effort to “restore the scientific method” to its rightful place in the debate over the causes, consequences, and policy implications of climate change.

The theme of the conference, “Restoring the Scientific Method,” acknowledges the fact that claims of scientific certainty and predictions of climate catastrophes are based on “post-normal science,” which substitutes claims of consensus for the scientific method. This choice has had terrible consequences for science and society. Abandoning the scientific method led to the “Climategate” scandal and the errors and abuses of peer review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The scientists speaking at this conference, and the hundreds more who are expected to attend, are committed to restoring the scientific method. This means abandoning the failed hypothesis of man-made climate change, and using real science and sound economics to improve our understanding of the planet’s ever-changing climate.

Global Warming Conference

Heartland has been very active in the global warming debate, publishing books and monographs, maintaining multiple Web sites providing information on the issue, and in 2009, publishing Climate Change Reconsidered, a comprehensive reply to the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Scores of other organizations have been invited to be co-sponsors to help supply speakers and promote the event to their members and supporters. Sponsors of previous ICCCs have included Americans for Tax Reform, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, and Science and Public Policy Institute, and Science and Environmental Policy Project.

The event is open to the public. Federal and state elected officials can attend for free.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well I am busy getting ready for a mini-conference locally but it sounds like a good time.   It also sounds like a death knell for AGW.   Scientists are beginning to understand that the faked and tricked-up data put out by the Warmers is of no consequence and that climatic change is a result of multiple factors operating all over the globe...and the primary cause of warming remains Solar activity.  Even Ian Plimer, no friend of creationists and therefore one of those multiple ice age guys still doubts AGW and presents a strong case.   Check it out for yourself!

10 comments:

Anonymous whatsit said...

Makes ya wonder where they got that climate data, huh?

AmericanVet said...

Try checking out the publications associated with the conference as well as the award-winning websites Watts Up With That and Dr. Roy Spencer's blog.

The IPCC emails show us that the evidence presented to the world was perpetrated fraud. Anything IPCC or CRU or CMOS publishes is therefore called into question, as they willingly and knowingly perpetuated the fraud. As to Michael Mann's hockey stick graph, that is just criminal prevarication in the form of a graphical presentation.

Anonymous said...

You mean these emails?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=related

There was no fraud contained in "those hacked emails". You're simply parroting what you've been told by conservative talking heads (see the video for evidence). You've been duped, Radar. Again. And embarrassingly so. Again.

- Canucklehead.

AmericanVet said...

I've been duped?! Canucklehead, I have read some of the emails...

Listen, I know of some prime real estate in a housing development where you can get land really cheap! Imagine a sandy beach for a backyard? Imagine living in an area famous for its flowers? Kandahar is the new Miami minus the ocean. Let me know when you get a couple of grand together as a down payment?

Anonymous whatsit said...

Yo Radar, I don't have a problem with where they got the climate data, but you should. Those same methods confirm an old Earth.

Way to run away from Canucklehead's point too. Derision is STILL not an argument. You got nothin'?

Anonymous said...

"I've been duped?! Canucklehead, I have read some of the emails..."

... and then what? Seriously, why run away from responding to this?

Anonymous said...

"Listen, I know of some prime real estate in a housing development where you can get land really cheap! Imagine a sandy beach for a backyard? Imagine living in an area famous for its flowers? Kandahar is the new Miami minus the ocean. Let me know when you get a couple of grand together as a down payment?"

Why, did you fall for it and now you're trying to unload it?

:-)

Anonymous said...

Radar says,

"Canucklehead, I have read some of the emails..."

And? Show us the fraud you've discovered in the emails you've read, Radar. You have nothing and you know it. I bet you read the exact emails that Rush and Glen were crowing about in the video I posted. You know, the ones that turned out to be much ado about nothing? Were you aware that there have been several independent investigations that found no fraud being perpetrated by any of the scientists that sent those emails. In fact, his website lists 7 of them.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/
The-question-that-skeptics-dont-want-to-ask-about-Climategate.html

More conspiracy, I suppose?

As usual, Radar, you've fallen victim to that "pride problem" you've admitted to in previous posts. You seem to revel in the outrageous and controversial nature of these silly positions of yours and, as a result, are a total sucker for absolutely anything anti-science. Rest assured, Radar, you are being used by individuals and groups (like the Koch bothers, for example) that are playing off your blind faith in anything "right-wing" or "conservative". Their goals do not benefit you or your family, and the sooner you wake up to that fact, the better.

And whats up with you sock puppeting as "American Vet" all the time, lately? What, don't want to get in trouble for blogging while you're on the job, or something? For any out there that arent aware, Radar = American Vet.

Finally, what the hell are you talking about in that last paragraph? Was that supposed to be humor? So, because, unlike you, I'm not naively following what Glen Beck tells me about "climategate", I should move to Afghanistan? I don't get it.

- Canucklehead.

radar said...

Yes, Canucklehead, you have been duped. Duped by Michael Mann's faked hockey stick graph, duped by the IPCC who were trying to figure out how to deal with actual figures showing declining temperatures. Duped by people who wanted to hide the "little ice age" and didn't want to admit that the medieval warming period was a great time for humanity. Duped by scientists who know that carbon in the atmosphere is plant food that helps farmers and individual gardeners grow more food with less water. Duped by people who have convinced you that a substance that might be something like 400 PPM worth of atmosphere can change temperatures. Duped by people who went about intentionally changing weather stations in North America to put the temperature readers on asphalt roofs, in front of air conditioner outlets, in the middle of concrete heat wells in cities, next to airport runways so they would include the hot exhausts of jets and etc. Duped by government agencies that compiled temperatures from the rigged weather stations and then "estimate" the rest when readings were available. Duped by reports of Polar Bears dying and drowning when in fact they can outswim humans and their populations are growing. You have been thoroughly and remarkably duped.

Also, depending on which part of the network I am on, I am either radar or AmericanVet. I do answer commenters with both ID names depending upon where I am at the time. I have already explained that previously. Feel free to read my AmericanVet blogposts any time!

Anonymous said...

I don't have time to run through your entire Gish Gallop above, Radar. Like Jon has said before, it takes one 2 hours to explain a lie that took two minutes to state (and I count at least 10 lies in your first paragraph alone). That said, if I'm the one being duped, it would require a massive conspiracy theory involving 90 percent of the scientists on the planet, while if you are the one being fooled, no such conspiracy required. Who's story is more likely to be true, again?

And can you say why, all these people are faking data, in your scenario? What is their motivation?

Why can't you see the money in "denial science"? Have you seen the bottom lines of every single oil and gas company in existence? It is in their best interests for you to question global climate change, and they spend some of those millions/billions to make sure you'll do their work for them. Heartland Institute, anyone?

-Canucklehead.