Climate change

[Al_U_Card]

TRUE BELIEVERS AVERT YOUR EYES! Interested parties may continue to read...

 

 

There is an fascinating series of posts explaining climate models, how they work and what may be a fundamental flaw in their use.

The author is Dr. David Evans, an ex climate modeler for the Australian gov. and husband of Joanne Nova whose definitely skeptical site is hosting the series. Dr. Evans has also been formulating his own climate model to help predict future climate trends.

 

The posts are technical but not terribly mathematical and accessible to anyone with some inkling as to how science applies theory to practice. Well-known climate (among other things) skeptic Christopher Monckton said this in the comments:

 

"David’s post is an excellent summary of the main points of the IPCC’s understanding of the climate sensitivity equation where temperature feedbacks are absent or net-zero. However, some caution is advisable. One-third of the anthropogenic influence on climate since 1750 has occurred in the past 18 years 8 months, since January 1997, and yet the RSS satellites show no global warming at all throughout that period. That raises the question whether, even in the absence of temperature feedbacks, one would expect as much as 1 degree of global warming per doubling of CO2 concentration. At the World Federation of Scientists last month, a leading physicist gave a paper revealing that an error in the computer models has led to an exaggeration of the CO2 radiative forcing by 40%. That would reduce the zero-feedback climate response from 1.16 C to just 0.8 C at equilibrium.

 

What is more, the CMIP5 models have made a hitherto-unremarked reduction in their central estimate of feedback amplification. They’ve cut it from 2 Watts per square meter of additional radiative forcing per degree of direct warming to just 1.5 W/m2/C. And that, combined with the news that the CO2 forcing has been exaggerated, cuts the central estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity, after all feedbacks, from 3.3 to just 1.5 C, right at the bottom of the long-standing “official” interval of estimates, and far, far too low to be any sort of a problem. Add to that the argument that David is about to unfold – and it’s a doozy – and there’ll be nothing left of the official storyline."

 

Read them as they appear, this is no.2 in the series

[Al_U_Card]

First there was the Grivalja inquisition for climate heretics.

Then there was the "RICO-20" asking the gov to "look into" climate change skepticism as a racketeering criminal operation.

Cui bono? Just follow the money, which seems to lead to "Shukla's gold" and has initiated a congressional investigation.

Read all about it at Climate Audit and maybe even news outlets near you sometime soon (hopefully).

[mike777]

The pope has a bully pulpit too: Pope Francis, in White House Ceremony, Praises Obama’s Action on Climate Change

 

 

We do indeed.

 

Not that any one voice will convince everyone, but every voice helps some. And the pope's voice carries more credibility than most.

 

yes

[hrothgar]

 

The author is Dr. David Evans, an ex climate modeler for the Australian gov. and husband of Joanne Nova whose definitely skeptical site is hosting the series. Dr. Evans has also been formulating his own climate model to help predict future climate trends.

 

The posts are technical but not terribly mathematical and accessible to anyone with some inkling as to how science applies theory to practice.

 

Here's a couple other choice quotes from Dr Evan's paper “Manufacturing money, and global warming”

 

There are a small number of families who, over the centuries, have amassed wealth through financial rent seeking. They are leading members of the paper aristocracy. For example, the Rothschilds are the biggest banking family in Europe, and were reputed to own half of all western industry in 1900. That sort of wealth doesn’t just dissipate, because unless the managers are incompetent the wealth tends to concentrate. The banking families don’t work for a living in the normal sense, like the rest of us. They avoid scrutiny and envy by blending in and make themselves invisible. Since they own or influence all sorts of media organizations, it isn’t too hard.

 

The paper aristocracy has overwhelming wealth. They own or influence all the media – if only because every media organization borrows from banks. They influence almost all the institutions that employ professional economists, by supplying the money for PhDs and providing most of the lucrative consulting jobs for economists. They buy politicians by the truckload. The banksters have even killed the occasional thorn in their side—including, probably, two US presidents, Lincoln and Garfield…

 

At least Al and I are in agreement about one thing.

 

"Jews control the money supply" isn't terribly mathematical.

[hrothgar]

 

At least Al and I are in agreement about one thing.

"Jews control the money supply" isn't terribly mathematical.

 

 

FWIW, I am thankful that we can now establish a clear linkage between Al's 911 Trutherism and his preoccupation with global warming...

[Zelandakh]

FWIW, I am thankful that we can now establish a clear linkage between Al's 911 Trutherism and his preoccupation with global warming...

Rather than picking nits and following a completely specious argument, why not address the points made about climate sensitivity? We all know that much of what AI posts is rubbish but if you only make attacks of this nature I, for one, am inclined to think you have no counter-argument to offer.

[hrothgar]

Rather than picking nits and following a completely specious argument, why not address the points made about climate sensitivity? We all know that much of what AI posts is rubbish but if you only make attacks of this nature I, for one, am inclined to think you have no counter-argument to offer.

 

I spent YEARS pointing out the flaws in the various pieces of crap that Al posts, with nary a constructive response.

He simply ignores the criticism and posts some new piece of drivel.

 

The reason that I pointed out that Al's last font of wisdom is an anti-Semitic nut case is to illustrate how little care that Al takes in vetting the crap that he is constantly spewing. If he can't be bothered to invest any time or effort researching his sources, why should the rest of us invests hours of time reading the ***** in order to disprove it.

 

As I said, I played this game for years, but some times, the only way to win is not to play.

[Winstonm]

Rather than picking nits and following a completely specious argument, why not address the points made about climate sensitivity? We all know that much of what AI posts is rubbish but if you only make attacks of this nature I, for one, am inclined to think you have no counter-argument to offer.

 

Why would you bother to respond to someone who has demonstrated an interest only in disparaging information that does not conform to his political beliefs? He used to post this kind of conspiracy nonsense as a reason to reject climate change:

 

Posted 2011-March-09, 10:39

Well, a new crack has appeared. Eugene Wahl has admitted to receiving an e-mail from Michael Mann requesting that he delete e-mails. The mainstream media is still asleep but the blogoshpere is coming alive. It is only a matter of time

 

Responding only grants a degree of credibility where none is deserved.

[Al_U_Card]

The "science" associated with climate catastrophism is so far away from real science as to be nonsense. The CoP in Paris is coming soon and every effort to bolster support is undermined by the continuing eroding of the "science" behind the scam. As further analysis reduces the effect of [CO2] to unalarming levels, the cries of doom and gloom mean less and less. Look at the data and away from the "projections" and see just how little we can do about the weather let alone the global climate.

 

Or you can send them all your money and let them tell you what they are going to do with it (other than line their pockets...).

 

Shukla is just the tip of the funding iceberg. Might just as well be the PTL club... :ph34r:

[Zelandakh]

The "science" associated with climate catastrophism is so far away from real science as to be nonsense.

Saying it is so does not make it true. Provide evidence that the underlying science projecting future warming is untrue, then respond to criticism when those arguments are challenged.

[y66]

From the Shenandoah Valley's Climate Action Alliance weekly roundup on climate news:

 

Many people are wondering what outcome is required from the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 21) in Paris for it to be considered a success. Anthony Hobley of the Carbon Tracker Initiative provides a set of criteria. One concern about the conference is how much aid to developing countries the developed countries will commit to. In the past developed nations have promised to provide $100 billion annually, but pledges have fallen short of that value. Now French President Francois Hollande has pledged to increase France’s contribution from $3.3 billion annually to $5.6 billion by 2020.

 

Six large U.S. Banks have called for a strong international agreement on climate change. They said that putting a price on carbon is essential to unlocking investments in clean energy. In addition, Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England warned of the huge financial risk exposure faced by the insurance and other industries as a result of climate change and 15 insurance executives echoed his call for action.

[Daniel1960]

Saying it is so does not make it true. Provide evidence that the underlying science projecting future warming is untrue, then respond to criticism when those arguments are challenged.

 

See the following plot of climate model predictions compared to observed data.

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

 

Those models that rely most heavily on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels when calculating future warming, have fared the worst. Those that take into account solar and oceanic cycles have fared much better.

 

http://www.clim-past.net/9/447/2013/cp-9-447-2013.pdf

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

 

Many seem to overlook the assertions by the IPCC concerning the accuracy of the climate models. "Most simulations of the historical period do not reproduce the observed reduction in global mean surface warming trend over the last 10 to 15 years. There is medium confidence that the trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years, and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend."

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

[Al_U_Card]

[CO2] is the only climate "forcing" that we can affect by our actions.

Climate models use [CO2] as the main control knob for global climate "warming". (All effects derived from studies that rely on model-generated projections to elaborate and extend the analyses of data observed over the recent past.) If [CO2] is not of any real consequence in global climate then it cannot be used to control anything and its use as a market, price or evaluation of our energy footprint has no relation to climatic extremes or results.

 

That banks and bankers (insurance companies as well) want to have a new means of affecting markets or exploiting them is no surprise.

 

Mark Carney (such a name...Carney..) used to be the Gov. of the Bank of Canada until Harper got tired of his green leanings. Carney's wife Diana is a fervent supporter of Greenpeace. Perhaps England's tendency towards government involvement in things environmental helped him decide on his change of career venue?

 

Either way, the models are unable to handle global climate. Any improvement to them must involve a better replication of ACTUAL GLOBAL CLIMATE and not just agreement among themselves. Dr. David Evans work is aimed in that direction, whether it please enviro-zealots or not. Real science will eventually describe the actual relationship that exists between [CO2] and climate. At present, it is clear that the current IPCC generated scenarios only serve the interests of environmental scare-mongers and bankers...

[Zelandakh]

[CO2] is the only climate "forcing" that we can affect by our actions.

Once again, your initial assumption is trivially untrue. Back up your claims with supporting data.

[Al_U_Card]

The other basic problem is that we only account for about 4% of the total CO2 in circulation at any time. Reducing that would have a correspondingly minor effect on the overall carbon cycle. Perhaps the warming oceans are out-gassing the CO2 that has been really greening our planet lately?

 

Take your pick

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/efficacy_fig28.gif

[Zelandakh]

The other basic problem is that we only account for about 4% of the total CO2 in circulation at any time.

You are using a misleading definition of the word circulation here. Tell us instead what proportion of atmospheric CO2 is attributable to humans. Please compare with pre-Industrial Revolution levels but not with historic numbers.

[phil_20686]

You are using a misleading definition of the word circulation here. Tell us instead what proportion of atmospheric CO2 is attributable to humans. Please compare with pre-Industrial Revolution levels but not with historic numbers.

 

That's not the main problem. The CO2, and the atmosphere generally, accounts for substantially all the reason that the earth does not approach the temperature of space at night time. Thats about 300 degrees kelvin colder than the average temperature of the earth, so changing that knob by 4% is pretty f****** huge.

 

Obviously, its not linear etc etc, but the idea that "we only account for a small amount therefore can't be important" is pretty inane. I mean, the Russian's only accounted for a small amount of the food that Alexander Litvinenko ate, but it was terminal none the less!

[y66]

Here are some items from Les Grady's roundup of climate news for the week ending October 16th:

 

In a Commentary published in the journal Nature Geoscience UK climate scientist Kevin Anderson accuses his fellow climate scientists of deliberately downplaying the challenge of keeping warming below 2 degrees C. His analysis concludes that to have even a slim chance of staying under that limit will require a revolution in how we both consume and produce energy. This is a very sobering commentary, as discussed by Ed King, who also cites a paper published this week in Environmental Research Letters that warns that the combined climate plans of the U.S., the EU, and China leave little room; for emissions from other countries if we are to stay below the carbon budget.

 

In a new series of articles, The Guardian asks “Which countries are doing the most to stop dangerous global warming?”. In those articles they examine the pledges of 14 nations ahead of the November Paris climate conference.

 

N. Gregory Mankiw is a conservative economics professor at Harvard, yet he advocates a carbon tax as the best way to fight climate change. To find out why, read this interview by Amanda Little in Grist. Then read what Eduardo Porter has to say about “Bringing Republicans to the Climate Change Table.”

 

A new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change examined precipitation in the Sierra Nevada mountains of California to determine how frequently it has been as low as this past year. They used precipitation records back to about 1930 and tree ring data back to around 1500. They found that the current drought was the worst in the entire 500 year record. Furthermore, with further warming the frequency of such a drought is likely to increase.

 

In an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences researchers from the US and Germany examine the possible fate of US cities in the face of sea level rise. A key finding is that millions of Americans may already live in cities destined to be inundated. Whether they will or not depends on whether we reduce our CO2 emissions and the fate of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Andrew Freedman provides a more detailed analysis in Mashable.

 

Climate feedbacks have a very important impact on the outcome from adding CO2 to the atmosphere. In fact, they are the major complicating factor that makes it difficult to know exactly how much Earth will warm in response to more CO2. Prof. Eric Wolff of the University of Cambridge in the UK has explained the term feedback and summarized the major ones acting on the climate system, indicating where uncertainties lie. His piece was prepared for a general audience.

 

Three items from the oil front. BP's top economist has admitted that some of the world's oil will not be burned because of concerns over climate change. While many factors enter into decisions concerning oil exploration, it is encouraging to note that exploration for new oil reserves has been significantly curtailed. On Friday the Interior Department announced that it is cancelling oil lease sales for the Arctic Ocean for 2016 and 2017.

 

Perhaps it's the crazy weather we've been having, but according to a new poll, there has been a significant increase in the percent of Americans who believe that climate change is happening and that humans are influencing it.

[Daniel1960]

In other news, renowned physicist Freeman Dyson was interviewed about his views on the evidence for global warming and the consequences and benefits.

 

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/with-freeman-dyson-reluctant-global-warming-skeptic/1880/

 

While the data shows that California is indeed experiencing its driest episode in 500 years, the period up until the year 1500 was significantly drier, with mega-droughts lasting over a century. We have been living in a relatively wet era for the state.

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more

 

Neither the satellite data, nor the tidal gauges shows any change in sea level rise. Yes, some cities may be inundated, but it will take centuries, if not millennia.

 

http://www.kaltesonne.de/meeresspiegelanstieg-bleibt-hinter-den-erwartungen-zuruck-jetzt-konnte-nur-noch-eine-datenmassage-helfen/

[Al_U_Card]

Yes, the world is warming, gradually, gently and intermittently for the last several hundred years. We are in an intermittent pause for the last 20 years or so. This despite atmospheric [CO2] going from more than 0.3 parts per thousand to 0.4 parts per thousand. This compared to the much greater presence/influence of water vapor as a GHG...

The sun appears to be headed for a much quieter (and therefore cooler on earth) period after decades of heightened activity.

Global sea-ice is steady overall and weather is no "weirder" than it has been since recorded history. If anything, lately despite being closely watched, it has been generally more beneficial than previously. The earth is "greening" under the increased food supply provided by our thoughtless carbon recycling (from the ground to the atmosphere to the plants).

 

Climate models predict thermageddon but they are inaccurate and unsubstantiated. The UN wants more money to pay for islands sinking (that are not) storms increasing (that are not) and guilty consciences at are definitely more guilty.

 

Look at the claims and discard model-based conjecture. Rely on the data and factual analyses. Save your money to pay for snow removal.

[blackshoe]

That reminds me. I need to buy the electric shovel that I should have bought last year. :-)

[y66]

From the Climate Action Alliance of the Shenandoah Valley weekly climate news roundup.

 

According to NOAA data, September 2015 was the hottest September on record. In addition, so far 2015 is progressing as the hottest year on record by a wide margin.

 

The latest installment of Inside Climate News‘ investigative report on Exxon focuses on its role in sowing doubt about climate change by stressing uncertainty.

 

Because of accounting procedures adopted in previous climate negotiations, countries are responsible only for the CO2 emissions from within their own borders, regardless of where the fossil fuel being burned originated. This has allowed the U.S. to chide India and China about their increased use of coal, even though some of that coal came from the U.S. Not only that, the coal came from public lands (i.e., it belongs to American citizens) and is being sold to coal companies at a deep discount. Such situations make it difficult for us to be taken seriously in climate negotiations.

 

A new analysis by the International Energy Agency of the pledges by over 150 nations prior to the Paris climate summit shows that while CO2 emissions will be slowed, the global emission rate will still be increasing by 0.5% a year in 2030.

 

Krill is the foundation of the entire Antarctic aquatic food chain, as well as an important target for commercial fishing. Thus it is disturbing to find that ocean acidification could reduce Antarctic krill production by 20 to 70 percent by 2100.

[Zelandakh]

From the Climate Action Alliance of the Shenandoah Valley weekly climate news roundup.

So they believe it is ok to use the dirtiest energy sources possible so long as they get bought from another country? Interesting concept but perhaps one they should think through a little bit.

[mike777]

So they believe it is ok to use the dirtiest energy sources possible so long as they get bought from another country? Interesting concept but perhaps one they should think through a little bit.

 

I believe the objection is for a few people with economic and political power in govt to destroy the coal industry and coal jobs.

 

 

 

There would be far less push back if the coal industry was destroyed via the decisions of tens of millions of consumers in the marketplace. Granted there would still be DEMANDS by the unions FOR THE government to step in and save the industry. See what is happening with the steel industry in the UK.

 

 

I believe the main discussion is that people are violently opposed to the proposition that "We must concentrate power in Washington sufficient to avoid these terrible consequences."

 

"...How do you get people to accept scientific research?" "... Do you do that by insulting those who disagree with you, with sarcasm, rudeness, arrogance." "... quite a large number of people feel that that's the way to go...."

[Winstonm]

I believe the objection is for a few people with economic and political power in govt to destroy the coal industry and coal jobs.

 

 

 

There would be far less push back if the coal industry was destroyed via the decisions of tens of millions of consumers in the marketplace. Granted there would still be DEMANDS by the unions FOR THE government to step in and save the industry. See what is happening with the steel industry in the UK.

 

 

I believe the main discussion is that people are violently opposed to the proposition that "We must concentrate power in Washington sufficient to avoid these terrible consequences."

 

"...How do you get people to accept scientific research?" "... Do you do that by insulting those who disagree with you, with sarcasm, rudeness, arrogance." "... quite a large number of people feel that that's the way to go...."

 

So, you prefer mob rule over a representative form of government?