Dog Brothers Public Forum
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82563 Posts in 2250 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
 Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 16
 Author Topic: Pathological Science  (Read 125951 times)
Chuck B
Newbie

Posts: 42

 « Reply #600 on: January 12, 2012, 09:30:52 PM »

Woof BBG,

Quote
slippery method of debate

Slippery?  I am asking you to provide facts and quotes.  I am striving for the opposite of slippery.

Quote
I was hoping that would suggest that the high degree of confidence embraced by most on the AGW side of things might therefore be misplaced. My guess is that you are capable of grasping these sort of nuances, though it is not the ground on which you want to fight

That is exactly the ground I want to fight.  I want to go back and talk about the actual underlying science and work from there.  You seem to want to prove ad infinitum that it is difficult to quantify temperature changes on the earth and other large physical systems.  Why don't you go prove that boxers punch people in the face while you are at it?

Quote
And then when it rains the H2O bonds with carbon on the way down, forming a mild form of carbonic acid that have others on your side of the argument lamenting ocean acidification.

Ocean acidification is a separate and worthy discussion.  Let me know if you want to have it.  I'm currently working on a nitrification water treatment plant and the relevant bacteria do not shrug off minor pH changes.  They go dormant.  Not all organisms behave the same way.  I personally don't take a cavalier attitude towards poorly understood systems.

And what precisely is this mild form of carbonic acid that you are referring to?  CO2 is known to dissolve in water.  Not exactly a great mystery.  But if I want to know the oxygen concentration in the atmosphere I don't go grab the Encyclopedia Brittanica and start researching photosynthesis.  I just grab an oxygen meter and and take a measurement.  So again, I fail to understand why you are talking about KNOWN CO2 sinks when I can simply look at the old number and then look at the current number.  Do you want to talk about predicting future CO2 concentrations?  If so, what you are talking about is of relevance.  I didn't realize we were trying to figure that out.

Quote
Despite the fact that water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 it is much less studied than CO2 the AGW folks fixate on

And this is the discussion that we WOULD have had if you had bothered to look at the underlying science.  BTW water vapor is already fully accounted for and is the reason why this planet is livable.  Thanks water.  CO2 seems to be changing hence the interest.

Quote
Well there's this fellow named Al Gore who made a move about it; perhaps you can look it up on IMDB

I want you to provide a quotation indicating that someone thinks that CO2 is the only reason why the climate is changing.  That is the quote, or something close to it, that I want.  You seem to think that these scientists completely discount all other reasons why the climate could be changing.  Well if one of them truly said it, then you should be able to provide that quotation.  And way to pick a movie made by a non-scientist to prove a point and then not even provide a relevant quote.  BTW I have never seen the movie in question so you will have to get me a quote from it to make your point.

Quote
Variable has a very specific meaning in a scientific context and in the context we are discussing

Well I guess my education never ceases

Quote
Variable has a very specific meaning in a scientific context and in the context we are discussing I am quite comfortable saying that CO2 atmospheric concentrations are the variable AGW proponents have seized on while evangelizing about how we must end our wicked ways lest we are smote by global warming, climate change, or whatever the flavor of this week Scary Thing is.

CO2 seems to be of particular interest to me and others because it is the variable that we have some control over.  Last time I checked we didn't much control over the amount of water vapor in the air, the wavelengths and intensity of sunlight, or the ability of various molecules to transmit or absorb various wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.

Chuck
 « Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 09:35:28 PM by Chuck B » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Power User

Posts: 31257

 « Reply #601 on: January 13, 2012, 12:23:49 AM »

Well, the level of learning here is way over my head, but this did catch my attention:

"CO2 seems to be of particular interest to me and others because it is the variable that we have some control over."

For some reason I am reminded of the story of the drunk who drops his keys one night as he is taking a short cut across his lawn to his front door.  It is too dark to find the keys so he goes back to the sidewalk where there is a street lamp because the light is better there.

Carry on gentlemen, this is genuinely fascinating.   Thank you.
 Logged
Chuck B
Newbie

Posts: 42

 « Reply #602 on: January 13, 2012, 07:47:51 AM »

Woof Guro C.,

I understand what you are saying.  If you take my word for it that there might be something to AGW and we do have measured changes in CO2, and it certainly appears that there has been a small increase in the temperature of the planet over the last 50 or so years, when someone says that CO2 is not responsible where I come from you expect them to provide an alternate hypothesis.  Just saying that there are many factors that affect the climate but not putting forth a hypothesis which could be responsible for the change doesn't seem to satisfactory to me.  And from what I have seen the sun does not seem to have gotten brighter and that is a fairly easy thing for us to measure so that does not seem to be the likely cause.

On another topic, I'm hanging here in south texas at a refinery.  Believe it or not I get along fine with the collection of right wingers that works there.  The controls engineer owns a house near San Antonio that overlies some shale deposits.  A well has been installed which recovers from an area that underlies his farm so he got a nice chunk of change for the mineral rights plus royalties.  Since this is a shale it needs to be fracked before it can produce.  He has apparently lived in the area for his entire life and just felt his first earthquake.  Apparently they also run a gas sweetening operation close to his house and are venting noticeable quantities of some nasty gas like sulfur dioxide or hydrogen sulfide.  He doesn't care about either the earthquakes or the gas but then he is a right winger and 120,000 for the mineral rights plus royalties might have a little something to do with it too. Chuck  Logged Chuck B Newbie Posts: 42  « Reply #603 on: January 13, 2012, 08:09:09 AM » Woof BBG, I calculated the maximum concentration of carbon dioxide in water and it is 6 millimolar so your memory isn't quite right on this. You can dissolve more if you have an excess of carbonate in the water resulting in removal by chemical reaction. I'm interested in the study if you can lay your hands on it. Chuck  Logged Crafty_Dog Administrator Power User Posts: 31257  « Reply #604 on: January 13, 2012, 08:41:59 AM » Chuck: Thank you for slowing down to my level for a moment. "If you take my word for it that there might be something to AGW" Um , , , I don't. The point as I understand it is that whatever fluctuations we may or may not be seeing are well within the range of variability that we have seen before human industrialization. " and we do have measured changes in CO2, and it certainly appears that there has been a small increase in the temperature of the planet over the last 50 or so years, when someone says that CO2 is not responsible where I come from you expect them to provide an alternate hypothesis." Umm , , , not really. The answer, as I understand it is that we are well within the range of variability that we have seen before human industrialization. "Just saying that there are many factors that affect the climate but not putting forth a hypothesis which could be responsible for the change doesn't seem to satisfactory to me." But it does seem satisfactory to me. We have ALWAYS seen change and do so now, within previous parameters. "And from what I have seen the sun does not seem to have gotten brighter and that is a fairly easy thing for us to measure so that does not seem to be the likely cause." If you are referring to my posts concerning sun spots, the assertion was not that the sun had gotten brighter, it was that sun spots/solar flares seem to have an empirical coorelation that provides an alternative hypothesis-- something for which you have been asking.  Logged Chuck B Newbie Posts: 42  « Reply #605 on: January 13, 2012, 10:58:17 AM » Woof, Quote The point as I understand it is that whatever fluctuations we may or may not be seeing are well within the range of variability that we have seen before human industrialization. This may be true, but there could be an effect from the CO2 which is additive or subtractive with other effects. Thus if there is something to the AGW theory, then at some point in the future there could be a problem which is not fully mitigated by whatever cooling effects might exist. It would be nice to scientifically analyze the AGW prior to that date which I would contend isn't precisely happening right now. I will paraphrase an example that you will completely understand. I'll use only initials to protect the identities of those involved: GC: Higher taxes are a drag on the economy reducing GDP and therefore government revenue. CB: But I can point to numerous periods in our past and other countries where there were higher taxation rates than now which also had comparatively higher standards of living, prosperity, and the government was solvent. GC: Well there are other factors that effect economies which can swamp the effects of the higher tax rates. CB: Well if the effect that you are describing is so easily swamped by other factors, why do we spend so much time discussing it and why are we trying to set taxation rates based on this principle: GC: Because higher taxation rates are a burden on the economy even if it is buoyed by other factors. CB: Well can I see some sort of proof? Underlying mathematics? Etc? And on it goes. Quote Umm , , , not really. The answer, as I understand it is that we are well within the range of variability that we have seen before human industrialization. Probably so, but this does not argue against CO2 increases due to industrialization. If there is another hypothesis for the 20th century CO2 increase, I have not seen it. It seems to me that most people accept that industrialization is the cause of the recent increase in CO2 and simply are not worrying about it. Code: But it does seem satisfactory to me. We have ALWAYS seen change and do so now, within previous parameters. No one argues this but this seems to me to fall into "What me worry?" land. If a doctor told you that you had six months to live, you probably would tell him that you feel fine, assuming that you did. Then you would immediately ask him for his reasoning. What you wouldn't do, I think, is point out all the times in the past that you felt fine and lived, and then point out all the times in the past where you felt crappy and lived. I don't see many people trying to understand the AGW reasoning but are rather focused on temperatures right now and temperatures in the past. I'm not excusing any shenanigans by scientists who study AGW who may have fudged things or prepared what should have obviously been a bad model, but... I do feel for people that have no way to explain to the common man in a language that they typically use the work that they are doing which I would say in part encourages BS. Quote If you are referring to my posts concerning sun spots, the assertion was not that the sun had gotten brighter, it was that sun spots/solar flares seem to have an empirical coorelation that provides an alternative hypothesis-- something for which you have been asking. There have been some people that have hypothesized that the sun has put out more energy but the info from the Max Planck institute seems to contradict that. I will try to look at the sunspot hypothesis a little more but since sunspots are not generally that I know of linked to greater energy flux to the planet, the connection seems tenuous to me right now. Chuck  « Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 06:37:06 AM by Chuck B » Logged Crafty_Dog Administrator Power User Posts: 31257  « Reply #606 on: January 13, 2012, 11:17:13 AM » Getting ready to leave for 12 days and so may have to sign off for a while, but I will offer the Reagan tax rate cuts, the JFK tax rate cuts, the Clinton-Gingrich capital gains tax rate cuts, and the tax rate cuts of 1920 (I forget the President in question's name at the moment) as examples of the Laffer Curve in action.  Logged G M Power User Posts: 12042  « Reply #607 on: January 15, 2012, 09:28:30 PM » No one argues this but this seems to me to fall into "What me worry?" land. If a doctor told you that you had six months to live, you probably would tell him that you feel fine, assuming that you did. Then you would immediately ask him for his reasoning. What you wouldn't do, I think, is point out all the times in the past that you felt fine and lived, and then point out all the times in the past where you felt crappy and lived. I don't see many people trying to understand the AGW reasoning but are rather focused on temperatures right now and temperatures in the past. The key difference being that a doctor will diagnose you with something medical science has proven to be real.  « Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 09:35:25 PM by G M » Logged Chuck B Newbie Posts: 42  « Reply #608 on: January 16, 2012, 06:34:41 AM » Woof G.M., I have already told you that there is underlying science that says that there is something there. Science that you either refuse to look at or are incapable of understanding. Of course you don't believe that AGW is possible. You haven't remotely looked at it. Again, I find this to be an outstanding topic for the Pathological Science thread, so thanks for that. Chuck  Logged Chuck B Newbie Posts: 42  « Reply #609 on: January 16, 2012, 06:41:10 AM » Woof Guro C., It would be of some interest to me to track down the relevant semilog graphs and do a little graphical analysis of the periods that you mention, but I haven't done it yet. Let's assume for now that what you said is demonstrated by the data. There are still some interesting points. 1. Although the precise shape of the Laffer Curve isn't known, it clearly suggests that the amount of change in revenue and I would hazard in GDP becomes incrementally lower as you approach a deminimus average tax rate. The fact that we have had multiple reductions in tax rate in this country which has pushed us toward whatever that deminimus rate might be has in no way diminished how vocal the proponents of the Laffer Curve are. 2. Although the Laffer curve is posited as a way to increase government revenue or at least hold it nearly constant while reducing tax rates, it is nearly always held up as a model by people that don't want to maximize government revenue but would rather minimize it. If I were only to analyze those two points, I would surely come to the conclusion that the Laffer Curve was junk. chuck  Logged DougMacG Power User Posts: 5953  « Reply #610 on: January 16, 2012, 09:10:35 AM » "Although the Laffer curve is posited as a way to increase government revenue or at least hold it nearly constant while reducing tax rates, it is nearly always held up as a model by people that don't want to maximize government revenue but would rather minimize it." Complete straw argument or false observation IMO that the people pressing for the policies that grow revenues most during these times of paralyzing deficits want to minimize revenues. Please cite evidence. You passed up a much more obvious point that comes from American experience of 4 or 5 of Crafty's examples: Proponents of higher government spending look blindly at these periods of rapidly growing revenues and are missing out on the largest source of program funding - a vibrant economic expansion. Example: the Obama administration - the are dying to grow government but willing to pass up the greatest opportunities to fund it, instead seeking limited growth policies on all fronts. Revenues to the Treasury doubled in the 1980s for example yet opponents of lower tax rates cling to the false math that lower rates increased the deficit. Just one example, but there is a similar trend in each example that Crafty cited. "If I were only to analyze those two points, I would surely come to the conclusion that the Laffer Curve was junk." Translated/paraphrased by me - If you were to fully mischaracterize your point, it would lose all validity. Not one of your more persuasive statements in the thread IMHO.  Logged G M Power User Posts: 12042  « Reply #611 on: January 16, 2012, 09:11:47 AM » Woof G.M., I have already told you that there is underlying science that says that there is something there. Science that you either refuse to look at or are incapable of understanding. Of course you don't believe that AGW is possible. Chuck Unlike pancreatic cancer as an example, there is no proof of AGW. A doctor who told that that your average temp went up a degree until the 90's meant you were going to die, and based on falsified research would be seen by most to be a quack. A few guillible types might buy it though, if you dress it up in hysteria and pseudoscience.  Logged Crafty_Dog Administrator Power User Posts: 31257  « Reply #612 on: January 16, 2012, 11:12:06 AM » I get that with the Laffer Curve you are reasoning by analogy for application to the subject at hand, but I sense here a huge potential for thread drift If we want to continue this, and you do have an interesting point in what you say, lets take it over to the Economics thread in this sub-forum.  Logged Body-by-Guinness Power User Posts: 2788  « Reply #613 on: January 19, 2012, 08:12:20 AM » Pardon the data dump, getting ready to both teach and take classes while also keeping my day job nailed down. Thoughtful keyboard time is hard to come by. No new strange attractors: strong evidence against both positive feedback and catastrophe Posted on January 9, 2012 by Anthony Watts This is a comment by Dr. Robert Brown on the What we don’t know about Earth’s energy flow post. I thought it was so insightful on the topic of climate stability being “pushed” by CO2 forcing that I’ve elevated it to a separate post. – Anthony Is it fair to say that the two systems would oscillate within the same parameters but the probability of them being synchronized is nil? Sadly, no, not over long times. The systems could be as different as a ferromagnet magnetized up and an “identical” ferromagnet magnetized down. Or in the case of the Earth, as different as Glacial Earth and Interglacial Earth. The point is that both of these latter possibilities can be “stable” states for exactly the same insolation, etc, because feedbacks in the global system can themselves reconfigure to make them stable. If you look at the link to chaos theory I provided, and look at the figure that shows two loopy braids of lines, that provides an heuristic picture of the kind of possibilities available to coupled nonlinear differential systems. A plot of the Lorenz attractor for values r = 28, σ = 10, b = 8/3 Image via Wikipedia At the heart of each loop is something called a “strange attractor”, which is typically a limit point. The x and y axes are coordinates in a generalized (phase) space that represent the state of the system at any given time, x(t),y(t). The lines themselves are the trajectory of the system over time moving under the influence of the underlying dynamics. The point of the figure is that instead of their being a single “orbit” the way the earth orbits a regular attractor like the sun, the system oscillates around one attractor for a time, then the other, then both. Instead of nice closed orbits the orbits themselves are almost never the same. Two trajectories that are started close to one another will usually start out, for a while, orbiting the attractors the same general way. But over time — often a remarkably short time — the two trajectories will diverge. One will flip over to the other attractor and the other won’t. After a remarkably short time, the two trajectories are almost completely decorrelated in that the knowledge of where one lies (in the general accessible phase space) provides one with no help at all in guessing the location of the other. It’s only in this final sense that you are correct. Either system has to be found in the space of physically consistent states, states that are accessible via the differential process from the starting points. There is no guarantee that the trajectories will “fill phase space”. So in this sense they are both going to be found within the phase space accessible from the starting points. If those two starting points are close enough, they will probably sample very similar phase spaces, but there is no guarantee that they will be identical — especially if there are (many) more than two attractors, and if some simple parameter. In stat mech, with different assumptions, there is a theorem to that regard, but in the general case of open system dynamics in a chaotic system, IFAIK no. If you are interested in this sort of thing (which can be fun to play with, actually) you can look up things like the “predator-prey differential equations”, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equation IIRC this is one of the simplest systems exhibiting an attractor and limit cycle, and illustrates many of the features of more complicated dynamical systems. The attractor/fixed point in this case is the population of e.g. foxes and rabbits that remains in perfect equilibrium from year to year. Note well that this equation is deterministic, but of course a real population — even being modelled — always has random (or at least, “unpredictable”) variations — a certain amount of noise — and is actually discretized and not continuous as one cannot have half a cheetah eating \pi baboons. A better continuous “kind” of differential equation for describing systems like this with noise is something called a Langevin equation in physics — a system with “fast” microscopic degrees of freedom that one accounts for on average with a stochastic term, and slower degrees of freedom one integrates out like the predator prey equation. In physics it is a special limiting case of something called a generalized Master equation, which is the full integrodifferential description of a many body open quantum system and is really, really difficult. The general approach, however, is not inapplicable here — and is a presumed part of most of the simplified climate models. When you “smooth” the temperature by e.g. doing a running average, you are giving up information (the short time variation) and trying to reduce the complexity of the system by focussing on the slower time scale dynamics. If the system really is simple — has a single attractor and is in a very regular oscillation around it where the “noise” one is smoothing out really is irrelevant and just adds small variation to a single trajectory — this is probably OK. If the system is multistable and has many locally stable points, or worse if some of the degrees of freedom are things like the Sun whose time evolution is completely outside of “the system” and whose future you cannot predict and whose effect you do not precisely know, so that the attractors themselves can be moving around as the system evolves locally — it is probably not OK. The symptom of the latter kind of multistable system where it is probably not OK is a series of punctuated equilibria, visible in the smoothed data. The 30 year satellite data and SST data fairly clearly shows this kind of behavior. One final very important point — systems that oscillate almost always have negative feedback. In fact, that is the fundamental thing that defines an oscillatory system — it has attractors in it. Attractors are themselves stable (equilibrium) points such that if the system is perturbed from them it is pulled back towards equilibrium, not pushed away from it. In the general case of attractors in high dimensional spaces, this leads to the (Poincare) cycles around the attractors visible in the predator-prey equations or the Chaos figure with two strange attractors, except that they can get very, very complicated (and difficult to visualize) in 3+ dimensional spaces (where I’m not talking about physical spaces, note well, but parametric “phase” spaces, state spaces). Within some neighborhood of an attractor there is generally a fair bit of local stability — trajectories in that neighborhood will oscillate tightly around the one attractor and will be relatively unlikely to switch over to other attractors. Hence glacial and interglacial periods tend to last a fairly long time (compared to all of the many shorter timescales available to the system. Moving a single underlying external parameter — e.g. anthropogenic CO_2 concentration, Solar state, geomagnetic state — can be thought of as moving the fixed points of the multistable system. If we linearize, we can often guess at least the direction of the first order direction of the movement. For example, more CO_2, given the greenhouse effect, should increase heat trapping, hence increase average global temperature. The stable fixed point should thus move a bit up in the warming direction. Nearly all of the argument “revolves” (in more ways than one:-) around two simple problems, and note that I’m presenting them in a very different way than usual: a) Is this linear response assumption valid? This is not a trivial question. Increased CO_2 in a multistable system doesn’t just move the local attractor, it moves all the attractors, and not necessarily in simple linear ways in a really complicated system with many negative feedbacks (there by hypothesis all over the place because the system is dominated by attractors). In many systems, there are conservation principles at work (not necessarily known ones) that act as constraints so that moving one attractor up moves another one down or increases the “barrier height” between two attractors and hence deforms all of the limit cycles. b) Is the response the order of the mean difference between attractors being predominantly sampled within the system already? If it is greater, then it is likely not just to move the current attractor but to kick the system over to a new attractor. And it may not be the attractor you expect, one on the warmer side of the previous one. More warming, as warmists state in more heuristic terms, can make the system oscillate more wildly and hence be both warmer at the warmest part of the oscillation and colder at the coldest part of the oscillation. If the new excursion of the oscillation is great enough, it can kick the system into oscillation around a new attractor altogether on either side of things. Note that this latter statement is still oversimplified as it makes it sound like there are only two directions, warmer and cooler. But that is not true. There is warmer with morewater vapor in the atmosphere, warmer with less water vapor in the atmosphere, warmer with the sun active, warmer with the sun not active, warmer with sea ice increasing, warmer with sea ice decreasing, warmer with more clouds, warmer with less clouds, and the clouds in question can be day side or night side clouds, arctic or antarctic clouds, in the summer, fall, winter or spring, really month by month if not day by day, with feedbacks everywhere — tweaking any single aspect of this cycle affects all of the rest, and I haven’t even begun to list all of the important dimensions or note that there are really important time scales with nearly periodic oscillation of many of these drivers, or noted that the underlying dynamics takes place on a spinning globe that generates airflow vortices as standard operating procedure that have lifetimes ranging from days to decades. I have argued in posts above that the punctuated quasi-equilibrium evident in the climate record makes it very likely that the answer to b) is yes. The anthropogenic CO_2 shifts the system by order of or more than the distance between attractors, simply because the system jumped around between attractors even during time periods when there was no anthropogenic CO_2. Furthermore, the excursion of the system as it wandered among the attractors was as great as it is today, and not qualitatively different. This strongly suggests that while the the linear response assumption made in a) may be valid (per attractor) — or may not, but it will be a huge problem to prove it — the effect is less than the natural excursion, not greater than the natural excursion, and the negative feedback factors that make the multistable attractors (locally) attractive also act as negative feedback on the CO_2 induced shift! The latter is the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, as I already noted in one thread or another (two tired of writing to go see if it was this one). In an open system in a locally stable phase, the oscillations (fluctuations) couple to the dissipation so that more fluctuation makes more dissipation — negative feedback. If this is not true, the locally stable phase is not stable. This is a strong argument against catastrophe! The point is that given that CO_2 is making only small, slow, local shifts of the attractors compared to the large shifts of the system between the attractors, if there was a point where the system was likely to fall over to a much warmer stable point — the “catastrophe” threatened by the warmists — it almost certainly would have already done it, as the phase oscillations over the last ten thousand years have on numerous occasions made it as warm as it is right now. The fact that this has not happened is actually enormously strong evidence against both positive feedback and catastrophe. Yes, anthropogenic CO_2 may have shifted all the attractor temperatures a bit higher, it may have made small rearrangements of the attractors, but there is no evidence that suggests that it is probably going to suddenly create at new attractor far outside of the normal range of variation already visible in the climate record. Is it impossible? Of course not. But it is not probable. I’ll close with an analogy. When physicists were getting ready to test the first nuclear bomb, there was some concern expressed by the less gifted physicists present that in doing so they might “ignite the Earth’s atmosphere” or somehow turn the Earth into a Sun (note that this was before there was any understanding of fusion — the sun’s energy cycle was still not understood). I’ve read (far more recently) some concern that collisions at the LHC could have the same effect — create a mini-black hole or the like that swallows the Earth. Both of these are silly fears (although offered up, note well, by real scientists, because they could see that these outcomes were possible, at least in principle) and here’s why. The temperature and pressure created by the nuclear bomb is not unique! Although it is rare, asteroids fall to the earth, and when they do they create pressures and temperatures much higher than those produced by nuclear bombs. A very modest sized asteroid can release more energy in a few milliseconds than tens of thousands of times the total explosive energy of all of the man-made explosives, including nuclear bombs, on Earth! In a nutshell, if it could happen (with any reasonable probability), it already would have happened. Ditto the fears associated with the LHC, or other “super” colliders. Sure, it generates collisions on the order of electron-teravolts, but this sort of energy in nuclear collisions is not unique! The Earth is constantly being bombarded by high energy particles given off by extremely energetic events like supernovae that happened long ago and far away. The energies of these cosmic rays are vastly greater than anything we will ever be able to produce in the laboratory until the laboratory in question contains a supernova. The most energetic cosmic ray ever observed (so far) was a (presumably) proton with the kinetic energy of a fastball-pitched baseball, a baseball travelling at some 150 kilometers per hour. Since we’ve seen one of these in a few decades of looking, we have to assume that they happen all the time — literally every second a cosmic ray of this sort of energy is hitting the Earth (BIG target) somewhere. If such a collision could create a black hole that destroyed planets with any significant probability, we would have been toast long, long ago. Hence it is silly to fear the LHC or nuclear ignition. If either were probable, we wouldn’t be here to build an LHC or nuclear bomb. It is not quite that silly to fear CAGW. The truth is that we haven’t been around long enough to know enough about the climate system to be able to tell what sorts of feedbacks and factors structure the multistable climate attractors, so one can create a number of doomsday scenarios — warming to a critical point that releases massive amounts of methane that heats things suddenly so that the ocean degasses all of its CO_2 and the ice caps melt and the oceans boil and suddenly there we are, Venus Earth with a mean temperature outside of 200 C. If we can imagine it and write it down, it must be possible, right? Science fiction novels galore explore just that sort of thing. Or movies proposing the opposite — the appearance of attractors that somehow instantly freeze the entire planet and bring about an ice age. Hey! It could happen! But is it probable? Here is where the argument above provides us with a great deal of comfort. There is little in the climate record to suggest the existence of another major stable state, another major attractor, well above the current warm phase attractor. Quite the opposite — the record over the last few tens of millions of years suggest that we are in the middle of a prolonged cooling phase of the planet, of the sort that has happened repeatedly over geological time, such that we are in the warm phase major attractor, and that there is literally nothing out there above it to go to. If there were, we would have gone there, instead, as local variations and oscillation around the many> minor warm phase attractors has repeatedly sampled conditions that would have been likely to cause a transition to occur if one was at all likely. At the very least, there would be a trace of it in the thermal record of the last million years or thereabouts, and there isn’t. We’re in one of the longest, warmest interglacials of the last five, although not at the warmest point of the current interglacial (the Holocene). If there were a still warmer attractor out there, the warmest point of the Holocene would have been likely to find it. Since it manifestly did not, that suggests that the overall feedbacks are safely negative and all of the “catastrophe” hypotheses but one are relatively unlikely. The one that should be worrisome? Catastrophic Global Cooling. We know that there is a cold phase major attractor some 5-10C cooler than current temperatures. Human civilization arose in the Holocene, and we have not yet advanced to where it can survive a cold phase transition back to glacial conditions, not without the death of 5 billion people and probable near-collapse of civilization. We know that this transition not only can occur, but will occur. We do not know when, why, or how to estimate its general probability. We do know that the LIA — a mere 400-500 years ago — was the coolest period in the entire Holocene post the Younger Dryas excursion; in general the Holocene appears to be cooling from its warmest period, and the twentieth century was a Grand Solar Maximum, the most active sun in 11,000 years, a maximum that is now clearly past. IMO we are far more likely to be hanging out over an instability in which a complete transition to cold phase becomes uncomfortably likely than we are to be near a transition to a superwarm phase that there is no evidence of in the climate record. The probability is higher for two reasons. One is that unlike the superwarm phase, we know that the cold phase actually exists, and is a lot more stable than the warm phase. The “size” of the quasistable Poincare cycle oscillations around the cold phase major attractor is much larger than that around the warm phase attractors, and brief periods of warming often get squashed before turning into actual interglacials — that’s how stable they are. The other is that we spend 90% of the time in glacial phase, only 10% in interglacial, and the Holocene is already one of the longer interglacials! There is dynamics on long timescales that we do not understand at work here. We have only the foggiest idea of what causes the (essentially chaotic) transition from warm phase to cold phase or vice versa — very crude ideas involving combinations of Milankovich cycles, the tipping of the ecliptic, the precession of the poles, orbital resonances, and stuff like that, but there is clearly a strong feedback within the climate cycle that enables cold phase “tipping”, probably related to albedo. It could be something as simple as a quiet sun; the LIA-Maunder minimum suggests that we should actively fear a quiet sun, because something in the nonlinear differential system seems to favor colder attractors (still in the warm phase major attractor) during Maunder-type minima. One has to imagine that conversion to glaciation phase is more likely at the bottom of e.g. the LIA than at any other time, and the Holocene is probably living on borrowed time at this point, where a prolonged LIA-like interval could tip it over. To be honest, even a LIA would be a disaster far greater than most of the warmist catastrophic imaginings. The population of the world is enormous compared to what it was in the last ice age, and a huge fraction of it lives and grows food on temperate zone land. Early frost and late spring could both reduce the available land and halve the number of crops grown on the land that survives, even before full blown glaciation. Cold (warm) phases are often associated with temperature/tropic droughts, as well, at least in parts of the world. IMO, the “rapid” onset of a LIA could kill a billion people as crops in Siberia and China and Canada and the northern US fail, and could easily destabilize the world’s tenuous political situation to where global war again becomes likely to add to our woes. We may ultimately discover that AGW was our salvation — the CO_2 released by our jump to civilization may ameliorate or postpone the next LIA, it may block cold-phase excursion that could begin the next REAL ice age for decades or even a century. In the meantime, perhaps we can get our act together and figure out how to live together in a civilized world, not a few civilized countries where people are well off and all the rest where they are poor and more or less enslaved by a handful of tyrants or religious oligarchs. Note well, this latter bit is itself “speculative fiction” — I don’t fully understand climate cycles either (it’s a hard problem). But at least there I can provide evidence for a lurking catastrophe in the actual climate record, so it is a lot less “fiction” than CAGW. rgb http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scripps-paper-ocean-acidification-fears-overhyped/  Logged Body-by-Guinness Power User Posts: 2788  « Reply #614 on: January 19, 2012, 08:30:06 AM » Second post. A Summary of Climate Change over the Past Millennium in China Reference Zhou, XJ. 2011. The characteristics and regularities of the climate change over the past millennium in China. Chinese Science Bulletin 56: 2985. Background The author - who is with the State Key Laboratory of Severe Weather of the Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences in Beijing - writes in an introductory editorial in a special issue of the Chinese Science Bulletin (October 2011) that "research on global climate change has been at the frontier of the contemporary sciences," and within this context he further states that "debate has focused on whether the greenhouse effect produced by human activities is a major factor responsible for modern climate warming." What was done Zhou reports that "in 2009, the major project 'Research on tree-ring and millennium climate change in China' was implemented under the support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China." Noting that eight articles published in this special issue of the Bulletin "present partly preliminary results obtained by the project over the past two years," he then goes on to summarize, in the broadest possible sense, their findings. What was learned In the words of Zhou, the eight articles "reveal some characteristics and regularities of changes in temperature and precipitation in China and in East Asian monsoons over the past 1000 years," and he says that "notable conclusions," of which he lists only two, are that (1) "temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period are comparable to those in the current warm period over China," and (2) "the effect of solar activity on climate cannot be neglected in any period of the millennium." What it means These two findings stand in stark contrast to what is generally claimed by the world's climate alarmists, which is no small matter, as they apply to a significant portion of the planet. Hence, they should give everyone reason to reconsider the climate-alarmist claim that modern warming has been unprecedented over the past millennium or more, which claim is also refuted by many additional scientific studies described in our Medieval Warm Period Project. http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N3/C3.php  Logged Body-by-Guinness Power User Posts: 2788  « Reply #615 on: January 19, 2012, 08:32:29 AM » Third post Daren Jonescu: Global Warming: The Evidence is Endless Wednesday, January 18th 2012, 9:46 AM EST Co2sceptic (Site Admin) If I believed the Earth was slowly turning into cheddar cheese, I could invoke this theory to explain a lot of things. Why is the rat population in our major cities growing so quickly? Earth cheesification is providing more rat food. Why have there been so many earthquakes lately? The cheesification of the tectonic plates has made them less resistant to sudden shifts. Why are glaciers melting? The freezing point of cheddar cheese is lower than that of water; as the Earth at the poles undergoes cheesification, the unfrozen cheese is causing a slight warming of the ice sheets from below, resulting in unusual levels of melting. I could go on like this for a long time, I suppose. At some point, however, you would confront me with some natural fact that I could not logically account for by means of my cheese theory. In other words, even the greatest faith in this underlying assumption could never withstand all possible evidence. If, however, we could devise a theory that might literally be able to repel absolutely any possible counterevidence, then we would have accomplished something truly diabolical: an unfalsifiable theory. If we could indeed devise such a theory, then we could run wild explaining anything and everything, and absorb absolutely any eventuality, without ever needing to question our faith in the underlying hypothesis. Then we would be at liberty to publish headlines such as this: “Research suggests warmer summers could be causing colder winters.” This conjecture, brought to you via the magical theory of global climate change, is reported as though it is the most plausible explanation of the peculiar fact that Canadian winters do not appear to be getting any warmer. Article continues below this advert: Question you aren’t supposed to ask: Why is the non-warming of recent winters a peculiar fact in need of an explanation? After all, did anyone in the past harbor any presumption that winters ought to be getting warmer? Why should they? The difference, of course, is that in the age of global warming, everyone is supposed to know, beyond any doubt, that the Earth is indeed getting significantly warmer. Thus, every time someone casually observes that the weather is pretty chilly, or that there has been a lot of snow, all hearers in the room look at their hands awkwardly, smirk bemusedly, or display some other symptom of that feeling familiar to anyone who has had to face doubts about a deeply held religious belief: “But this just can’t be true, because if it is, then my world is about to crumble.” The world of anthropogenic global climate change crumbled a long time ago The world of anthropogenic global climate change crumbled a long time ago. That, in fact, is why we have a theory called “anthropogenic global climate change” in the first place. Thirty-five years ago, it was called global cooling. When the temperature records made minced meat of that “theory,” it was put on ice for a few years, as it were. Finally, on the principle that if you can’t beat Mother Nature, you must join her, the wizards who brought us global cooling conveniently revised their models to prove beyond any doubt that the newly discovered global warming trend was a man-made phenomenon. Then, around 1998, the temperature records began to flat-line. Carbon dioxide, the Enemy, was reaching ever-higher levels in the atmosphere; and yet it was no longer having the desired – er, I mean “anticipated” – effect of warming the planet as it should (oops, I mean “as the models predicted”). For several years, the global crusaders against carbon dioxide mocked, ridiculed, and/or ignored anyone who dared to ask why, if rising CO2 levels cause global warming, temperatures were not rising at accelerating rates, as CO2 levels continued to rise exponentially. Oh, but temperatures are indeed rising, the faithful said. In fact, each year, they produced annual temperature record analyses, garnered through the official scientific records center, the UN, showing that that year had been the warmest ever recorded. Then, a little later, some fine print would appear somewhere explaining how the report had slightly overestimated the warming for the year in question. Hedging their bets, the global warmers began offering arguments to account for the stalled warming trend, even while they continued to deny that the trend had stalled – a method equivalent to saying, “I didn’t kill my wife, but if I did, it was in self-defense.” Their main argument was a condescending appeal to the big picture that the skeptics were allegedly too narrow-minded to see: Global temperature change, they said, is a process that develops over a very long period of time. Therefore, they harrumphed, claiming that a broader trend has ceased because temperatures have not changed for a few years shows an unscientific short-sightedness. Of course, if one were to accept this bet-hedging argument, one could turn it back on the global warmers: Eighty years can hardly be called a “big picture,” in planetary terms. The Earth is believed to be more than four billion years old. If five years without warming is too short a period to call a trend, then why is eighty years of net warming a long enough period to call a trend? From the point of view of four billion years, eighty looks an awful lot like five, does it not? (To be precise, as a percentage of four billion, 5 is 0.000000125%, while 80 is 0.000002%.) So how sure can we be that the period during which this unnatural warming is alleged to have happened is a long enough period to indicate a “long-term trend”? Will they be forced back to frightening us about global cooling again in twenty years? Perhaps dimly recognizing this little problem, the global warming advocates – um, I mean “researchers” – finally hit upon the perfect modification of their theory, namely to say that it doesn’t matter what happens to the temperature; the cause, in any case, is man. Thus, along about the middle of this century’s first decade, we suddenly had John Kerry and Hillary Clinton exiting a Senate hearing and taking to the microphones to discuss “global climate change.” No one officially announced this name change, of course. It just sort of happened. And with it came the lovely new premise that what our CO2 emissions are causing is neither warming nor cooling, per se, but rather “change.” “What kind of change?” you ask. Invalid question. Just “change.” Change from what? From some previous year’s “climate”? From some objective standard of what would have happened “naturally,” had we icky humans not spewed the by-product of so much life-sustaining productivity into Gaia’s aura? It makes little difference; no need to fuss about what exactly the “changers” are claiming is changing, since the particular changes that might occur from here on out are of no consequence to the theory. Any change will do – including no change at all, which can also be interpreted as a change, if you tilt your head a bit to one side. The unanimous, settled scientists and their masters, the unanimous, settled proponents of global governance, have continued to act as though they still want you to accept that temperatures are rising every year, ice caps are shrinking, polar bears are drowning, and so on. “Global climate change” is, for most practical purposes, still “global warming.” This is necessary, since global regulation requires global panic, and it would be much more difficult to stir panic over the idea – which is, officially, the theory of the moment – that “temperatures, and their effects, may or may not change in one way or another over any given period of time.” Global warming is indispensable as a political tool, even if it can only be preserved through a fuzzy bait-and-switch operation with global climate change Global warming is indispensable as a political tool, even if it can only be preserved through a fuzzy bait-and-switch operation with global climate change. Nevertheless, the name change provided good backside protection. “Global climate change” takes a perfectly good bit of crackpot neo-religiosity and elevates it to the level of unfalsifiable pseudo-theory – unfalsifiable, as in nothing you could possibly present to the nutters by way of facts can ever be evidence to the contrary. Why not? Because there is no contrary. If cooling, warming, and stasis are all evidence of anthropogenic global climate change, then science has finally followed the rest of the modern world into that realm of inescapable self-incrimination dubbed the Kafkaesque. We are guilty of global climate change. There is no proof. There is not even anyone to talk to by way of defending ourselves. Having been inexplicably accused, we will simply be sent on a dreamlike quest through a never-ending maze of inhuman obfuscation until, gradually, we come to accept that the accusation against us must be true, or else it would not have been made. At this point, we must desire our own demise, as the only “just” resolution, given the undefined crimes of which we have convicted ourselves. At last, as the fight to defend global warming reached fever pitch over some e-mails seeming to discuss evidence-alteration – remember, this defense of warming took place years after the official line was that it didn’t matter whether the temperature was rising or not – one of the main players in the scandal, and one of the most prominent and respected defenders of the cause-without-any-definable-effect, stepped forward to concede that there has been no warming since 1995. When asked whether he thought natural causes could account for the warming from 1975-1998, and if so, to what extent, he answered, “This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system).” So let’s get this straight: Dr. Phil Jones, one of the world’s foremost authorities on global climate change, says that the question of the possibility and degree of natural climate influences is outside of his area of expertise. Translation: I don’t do climate change; I do man-made climate change. His expertise is in trying to show the existence of an influence on climate that no one prior to 1970 thought was possible, and he thinks that looking at other influences which everyone has always known were real is outside of his area. In other words, looking at known facts of nature would get in the way of his career-advancing conjectures, so, as a matter of professional policy, he doesn’t look at them. Notice that when Jones lists “all possible factors” of warming from 1975-1998, he lists “human influences” first, as though this were the obvious first place to look for an explanation of a variation in global temperatures over a 23-year period – as though no 23-year period has ever shown a variation in temperatures before. His default assumption is the furthest one from common sense, namely that humans did it. Likewise, in our latest contribution to unfalsifiability, in which cold winters have been interpreted as a symptom of global warming – in spite of the fact that until recently, the party line was to deny that winters are still cold at all – the research project undertaken to reach this conclusion is described this way: “Cohen and his co-authors began by asking themselves why winter temperatures in the northern hemisphere aren’t going up as quickly as in the spring, summer and fall.” Once again, the default assumption is anthropogenic global warming. The task the researchers set for themselves was to explain away falsifying evidence. For example, why were they not trying to explain how the cold winters might be causing warmer summers? Because the paradigm they are working in demands that all apparent exceptions to global warming be explained away. Thirty-five years ago, they would indeed have been making the opposite argument, in order to salvage global cooling. Recently, a former Korean student of mine made a typical unquestioning reference to global warming. Constitutionally averse to letting smart people say stupid things, I briefly offered some of the usual arguments against anthropogenic climate change. My student answered, diplomatically, that the issue seemed to be a “mystery,” but that as she was unable to verify my facts in her first language, and as so many intelligent people were working on this issue at the UN, she was obliged to stick to her position. In other words, she was assuming, as we are all meant to do, that the burden of proof is on the “denier.” I asked her this question: If I went to the police and told them you were a murderer, should they arrest you? Why not? Because we put the burden of proof on the accuser, which is to say, on the person proposing something that falls outside of normal assumptions. Why do we do the opposite with man-made global climate change? Daren Jonescu has a Ph.D. in Philosophy from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. He currently teaches English language and philosophy at Changwon National University in South Korea. He can be reached at d_jonescu@yahoo.ca. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8986  « Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 10:08:10 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged Crafty_Dog Administrator Power User Posts: 31257  « Reply #616 on: January 19, 2012, 10:13:54 AM » As best as the lowly layman reader can tell, those three pieces are rather impressive-- especially the Jonescu one--thank you BBG. I note btw, the second posted material, references the variable I have been asking Chuck to address, namely solar activity. Anyway, Chuck, over to you.  Logged Body-by-Guinness Power User Posts: 2788  « Reply #617 on: January 19, 2012, 11:29:26 AM » Quote slippery method of debate Quote Slippery? I am asking you to provide facts and quotes. I am striving for the opposite of slippery. By excising a sentence fragment, ignoring the pieces, facts, and quotes I have provided, and then taking a high moral tone? Let me know how that works out. Quote That is exactly the ground I want to fight. I want to go back and talk about the actual underlying science and work from there. You seem to want to prove ad infinitum that it is difficult to quantify temperature changes on the earth and other large physical systems. Why don't you go prove that boxers punch people in the face while you are at it? What a silly comparison. When a punch lands there is a concrete result, which is why I prefer sparring to internet debate as when I smack someone there is an immediate impact disingenuous debate does not alter. They can then claim that concrete result should not be taken at face value, but the welt remains. Where AGW is concerned, alas, the books are cooked, the single variable most latch on to has failed to produce applicable, replicable results despite hyperventilation unprecedented in science, and exclusive focus on that variable has eclipsed myriad other factors impacting heating/cooling/climate/whatever, while anyone who points out the nekid emperor aspects of this foolishness is called mean names. I understand you want to thrum on IR absorption rate of CO2, but doesn't the complexity of the various systems and the impact of the near exclusive focus on the single variable have critical places in the conversation? Or are we only allowed to tangle on the ground you have staked out? Quote Ocean acidification is a separate and worthy discussion. Let me know if you want to have it. I'm currently working on a nitrification water treatment plant and the relevant bacteria do not shrug off minor pH changes. They go dormant. Not all organisms behave the same way. I personally don't take a cavalier attitude towards poorly understood systems. And what precisely is this mild form of carbonic acid that you are referring to? CO2 is known to dissolve in water. Not exactly a great mystery. But if I want to know the oxygen concentration in the atmosphere I don't go grab the Encyclopedia Brittanica and start researching photosynthesis. I just grab an oxygen meter and and take a measurement. So again, I fail to understand why you are talking about KNOWN CO2 sinks when I can simply look at the old number and then look at the current number. Do you want to talk about predicting future CO2 concentrations? If so, what you are talking about is of relevance. I didn't realize we were trying to figure that out. I'm a lay cave scientist, hence my fascination with carbonic acid infiltration of sandstone microlineaments in Karst formations. We cavers have a really lame joke: Q: What's worse than caving w/ a geologist? A: Caving w/ two geologists. The joke doesn't have to be explained to cavers or most scientists: the only thing worse that spending 12 to 30 hours underground with a droning know-it-all is doing the same with two know-it-alls who argue interminably about every aspect of cave geology. And that experience isn't unique to caving or geology: there is vigorous, conflicting debate in just about every branch of science, except the newly minted branch of climate science where unanimity is demanded and, as evidenced by the Climategate emails, schemed for in a manner that would make Madam Defarge proud. Be that as it may, I will cede that your science training is likely far more formal than mine, and were I silly enough to fight on that ground I'd likely take a drubbing. That does not mean, however, that I have to accept the premise that rising CO2 levels are causing warming many vocal folks consider catastrophic, particularly as there are so many articulate "deniers" better trained than I taking issue with that premise, with many of those pieces being posted here. In view of the trillions of dollars AGW remediation would cost, the dubious results that remediation would likely bring, and the energy and development strangling politics embraced by many on the left who just so happen to be big AGW boosters, I think there is plenty of reason to question the unanimity this infant discipline pretends. An aside: I note you embrace DBMA affectations, but don't appear to have much of a handle on its ethos. I expect Marc will chime in if I veer too far from my lane, but as I understand it he likes his discussion sites to be extensions of the tribe strengthening through progressive, realistic contact ethic he favors on the martial arts side of the house. What I've seen in this thread doesn't much reflect that, having a much more traditional martial arts flavor instead: in a horse stance with fists on the hip you marched across the floor throwing IR absorption rate of CO2 punches. Physics theory gets raised and replied to with snap kicks marching the other way. It becomes more convenient to talk about laws of physics so things switch over to outer crescents thrown as the mat is crossed again. Scintillating stuff. Looks to me like you want to maneuver folks on to very specific scientific ground you have staked out upon which you can recreationally beat them to jelly with the tools you've been trained in, knowing they haven't the same skill set. Whatever floats your boat, I guess, but I suspect that's not the way Crafty wants business conducted around here. I'm certainly not stupid enough to tangle on your terms on your turf and think there are enough credible sources cited on these pages and elsewhere challenging CO2 doomsaying there is very little point in recapitulation. I do have strong suspicions, however, that scientists with political ends and politicians in need of scientific means have found a window amid the current interglacial interlude during which they can present a non-falsifiable scenario meant to stampede the unwashed masses toward their authoritarian ends. Think one side of the debate had a lot in common with Trofim Lysenko, Piltdown Man, Pons and Fleischmann, Michael Bellesiles, et al, that it's not very difficult to identify where those commonalities lie, and that you can only cry "wolf" while the sky is falling so many times before the doomstruck message loses its thrall. If you'd like to engage on that topic in lay terms, by all means, bring it. Quote And this is the discussion that we WOULD have had if you had bothered to look at the underlying science. BTW water vapor is already fully accounted for and is the reason why this planet is livable. Thanks water. CO2 seems to be changing hence the interest. Yeah, "settled science" as they just get the tools to study the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation. All roads lead to the carbon dioxide fetish, I guess. Quote I want you to provide a quotation indicating that someone thinks that CO2 is the only reason why the climate is changing. That is the quote, or something close to it, that I want. You seem to think that these scientists completely discount all other reasons why the climate could be changing. Well if one of them truly said it, then you should be able to provide that quotation. And way to pick a movie made by a non-scientist to prove a point and then not even provide a relevant quote. BTW I have never seen the movie in question so you will have to get me a quote from it to make your point. The fight I am picking is with the settled science crowd that has been echoed by the media and exploited by Al Gore. You seem to be a member of that crowd, except when it's expedient to disavow them. Are you seriously suggesting that CO2 doomsaying has not been hyped by scientists to the media to ends that are dubious at best? As that may be, don't ask the question if you don't want it answered, particularly as you'd have to be living under a rock not to have been bombarded by "global warming is gonna doom us all" foolishness. Quote Well I guess my education never ceases And your non-responsivness knows few bounds. Don't change the terms of debate and I won't call you on it. Quote CO2 seems to be of particular interest to me and others because it is the variable that we have some control over. Last time I checked we didn't much control over the amount of water vapor in the air, the wavelengths and intensity of sunlight, or the ability of various molecules to transmit or absorb various wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. No foolin'? We capping volcanoes? Interdicting asteroid strikes? Ending wildfires? Interrupting Ice Ages and their impact on the CO2 cycle? Who knew? PS: I did indeed misremember the ocean acidification factor: it was 1.4 molars. More details here: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/scripps-blockbuster-ocean-acidification-happens-all-the-time-naturally/  « Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 11:31:52 AM by Body-by-Guinness » Logged Cranewings Guest  « Reply #618 on: January 21, 2012, 11:03:59 AM » A long time ago I had a girlfriend who was getting her masters in Geology. She actually moved to Greece to keep working on things related to her dissertation, about the formation of their mountains and why their peaks were composed of mineral dense seafloor material. Anyway, I went to watch her dissertation where I got to hear some of the greatest scientific bickering of my life. At one point in a break between her professors arguing with each other, one turned to her and aggressively asked, "Why did you call this a pebbly mud-stone." To which she shot back irritably, "Because it is a pebbly mud-stone."  Logged Chuck B Newbie Posts: 42  « Reply #619 on: January 23, 2012, 03:33:25 PM » Woof BBG, Quote By excising a sentence fragment, ignoring the pieces, facts, and quotes I have provided, and then taking a high moral tone? Let me know how that works out. What have you provided? Articles ad infinitum indicating that it is difficult to measure changes in the temperature of the planet. yawn. tell me something I don't already know full well. Show me where one single scientist indicated that carbon dioxide is the sole variable that changes the temperature of the planet or affects the weather. That is what you are claiming they are saying. I'm saying Bull. Quote What a silly comparison. Unfortunately it went over your head. Quote I'm a lay cave scientist, hence my fascination with carbonic acid infiltration of sandstone microlineaments in Karst formations. And I have spent 20+ years addressing issues associated with calcite and aragonite precipitation in water treatment systems. This is a topic I understand quite well. Quote That does not mean, however, that I have to accept the premise that rising CO2 levels are causing warming many vocal folks consider catastrophic, Am I supposedly one of those folks? Quote Physics theory gets raised and replied to with snap kicks marching the other way. I have yet to see any physics discussion. The only thing we have been discussing so far has been BBG, G.M., and Guro C IMO. I have been itching for that physics discussion for a while hence my wonderment at you saying that I am slippery. Quote I do have strong suspicions, however, that scientists with political ends and politicians in need of scientific means have found a window amid the current interglacial interlude during which they can present a non-falsifiable scenario meant to stampede the unwashed masses toward their authoritarian ends. Now this just sounds like conspiracy theory. Instead look at the underlying science which is not political in nature last time I checked. You have yet to do it. Quote Yeah, "settled science" as they just get the tools to study the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation. All roads lead to the carbon dioxide fetish, I guess. Hmm, like a cloud chamber ionizing radiation detector? A rather old tool last time I checked. But sure, maybe the sky fairy will send us more ionization radiation to save us from the effects of global warming. What exactly that has to do with the underlying theory I have no idea. I thought people quit talking about the health effects of ionizing radiation back in the early 1900s but perhaps it will make a comeback. I remember when you said that the global warming effects of water were more pronounced and less studied than CO2. A rather silly comment when you consider that the greenhouse gas effects of water vapor have been studied from the mid 1800s and is considered to be the only reason that life is possible on the planet Earth. If you would quit trying to prove that we can't accurately measure the temperature of the planet, and actually look at the rest of science, you might have known this. Quote As that may be, don't ask the question if you don't want it answered, particularly as you'd have to be living under a rock not to have been bombarded by "global warming is gonna doom us all" foolishness. Still looking for my quote. i guess I'm not going to get it. Scientists say that the temperature of the earth will change by, last time I checked, 4 degrees celcius. I would hardly say that is a doom and gloom forecast. That is your language, not theirs. Quote And your non-responsivness knows few bounds. Don't change the terms of debate and I won't call you on it. No clue what you are talking about here. Can you elaborate? Quote I did indeed misremember the ocean acidification factor: it was 1.4 molars. er, 1.4 pH units which is not the same as molarity by any stretch. Just put it on your list. Chuck  « Last Edit: January 23, 2012, 03:43:17 PM by Chuck B » Logged Chuck B Newbie Posts: 42  « Reply #620 on: January 23, 2012, 03:38:33 PM » Woof Doug, Quote Complete straw argument or false observation IMO that the people pressing for the policies that grow revenues most during these times of paralyzing deficits want to minimize revenues Well, Guro C. would be one of those people who are not interested in maximizing the revenue that the government receives so I'm thinking that my argument can't be totally false. Chuck  « Last Edit: January 23, 2012, 03:53:24 PM by Chuck B » Logged Chuck B Newbie Posts: 42  « Reply #621 on: January 23, 2012, 03:51:50 PM » Woof Guro C., I can't say I was blown away by any of those articles. So there could be (and probably are) factors that limit the potential catastrophic effects of AGW. This seems like a rather uncontroversial hypothesis to me. I'm surprised they devoted so much space and supposedly erudite mathematical equations to the topic. It could have been a line or two. Temp goes up a bit, more water vapor, more clouds, more IR reflectance. Next. Quote "the effect of solar activity on climate cannot be neglected in any period of the millennium." I guess the law of conservation of energy wasn't repealed after all. Of course this is a true statement and again is about as uncontroversial as anything I have ever read. As I have indicated previously the Max Planck institute has indicated that solar power output has not changed in the last 50 years. Do you have anything that indicates that solar output has increased because I don't. I'm still struggling with how solar flares are supposed to have some effect on this. Chuck  Logged Crafty_Dog Administrator Power User Posts: 31257  « Reply #622 on: January 23, 2012, 11:29:11 PM » I'm not qualified or inclined to debate the science at the level in play here. The articles I cited seemed to me to offer a scientifcally plausible alternate to the temperature variations-- but I sure ain't the one to defend the case. I didn't get that there was an assertion that solar output had changed, only that some see an empirically observed connection between the solar flares and what happens here on earth. Signing off to lurk and enjoy the back and forth between BBG and you.  Logged Crafty_Dog Administrator Power User Posts: 31257  « Reply #623 on: January 27, 2012, 09:46:28 AM » Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article: A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed. In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts. Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2. The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2. The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Enlarge Image CloseCorbis .Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job. This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death. Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money." Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them. Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically. A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet. If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review. Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence. Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.  Logged G M Power User Posts: 12042  « Reply #624 on: January 29, 2012, 02:16:16 PM » http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years By David Rose Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012 Comments (467) Share The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years. The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food. Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak. We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century. Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still. More...Hotter summers 'may kill 5,900 every year', warns first national risk assessment of climate change Winter bites back: Britain braced for first cold snap of year as ice and snow transform countryside in scenes of breathtaking beauty According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C. However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html  « Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 10:17:04 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged Crafty_Dog Administrator Power User Posts: 31257  « Reply #625 on: January 29, 2012, 10:17:32 PM » http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop#articleTabs%3Darticle  Logged Body-by-Guinness Power User Posts: 2788  « Reply #626 on: January 30, 2012, 07:48:10 AM » Some of the "factors" so easily dismissed by those who prefer to focus on a minuscule percentage of atmospheric CO2. The Ridiculousness Continues – Climate Complexity Compiled Posted on January 21, 2012 by justthefactswuwt By WUWT regular “Just The Facts” With the help of an array of WUWT reader comments on this thread and several others documented within, I’ve been compiling a summary of all potential climatic variables in order to build a conceptual map of Earth’s climate system. The goals of this exercise include; To gain a bigger picture understanding and perspective of Earth’s climate system. To demonstrate that Earth’s climate system is a ridiculously complex, continually evolving and sometimes chaotic beast, with the plethora of variables, many interdependencies and an array of feedbacks, both positive and negative. To highlight the challenges associated with accurately measuring the current state, as well as predicting the trajectory and likely future state of Earth’s climate system many decades into the future. To build the WUWT Potential Climatic Variables Reference Page. To lay the conceptual groundwork for the WUWT Likely Climatic Variables Reference Page. Your help in completing this exercise would be most appreciated. Please take a look through the list below and let me know if you have any additions, suggestions or corrections. For those of you who’ve already read this list, it has grown significantly, especially the later portions. Please pay particular attention to Section 9. Albedo, as most of the content is new, thus it may need more work, and I’m also trying out a different linking/reference format. Your input on preferences between the linking/reference format in Section 9, versus the rest of the document would be most appreciated. Note: The list below is an evolving document that continues to undergo significant revisions and improvements based upon crowdsourcing input of an array of WUWT contributors. Additionally, this list was posted in a prior article and in comments on WUWT a few times previously, receiving input from a vast number of contributors. This thread, along with these precursor threads will serve as the bibliography for the forthcoming WUWT Potential Climatic Variables Reference Page. Wikipedia Note: The list relies heavily upon Wikipedia, due to the fact that it is the only source that offers reasonably coherent content on such broad range of subjects. However, there are know issues with Wikpedia’s content, especially biases in their climate articles. As such, please take care to view any Wikipedia articles with a critical eye and check Wikipedia’s references to evaluate the credibility of their sources. Additionally, in comments, please provide your suggestions of articles from alternate sources that can be added to this list in order to help readers to easily verify the veracity of the Wikipedia articles within. 1. Earth’s Rotational Energy; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html results in day and night; http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_rotation_cause_day_and_night causes the Coriolis Effect; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect imparts Planetary Vorticity on the oceans; http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter12/chapter12_01.htm and manifests as Ocean Gyres; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_gyre the Antarctic Circumpolar Current; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circumpolar_Current http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conveyor_belt.svg Arctic Ocean Circulation; http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=441&cid=47170&ct=61&article=20727 http://www.john-daly.com/polar/flows.jpg can result in the formation of Polynya; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynya and causes the Equatorial Bulge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge Earth’s Rotational Energy influences Atmospheric Circulation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation including the Jet Stream; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream Westerlies; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westerlies Tradewinds; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_wind Geostrophic Wind; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostrophic_wind Surface Currents; http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/ocean_currents.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_current through Ekman Transport; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekman_transport http://oceanmotion.org/html/background/ocean-in-motion.htm Rosby Waves; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossby_wave which “are principally responsible for the Brewer-Dobson circulation”; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewer-Dobson_circulation http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_6/6_4.htm Tropical Cyclones; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone possibly Tornadoes; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado however, Windows To The Universe states that, “because there are records of anticyclonic tornadoes, scientists don’t think that the Coriolis Effect causes the rotations.”; http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/tornado/formation.html and Polar Vortices; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/polar-vortex/ which “are caused when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the atmosphere, like water going down a drain.” http://www.universetoday.com/973/what-venus-and-saturn-have-in-common/ Here’s an animation of the Arctic Polar Vortex in Winter 2008 – 09: When a Polar Vortex splits or breaks down it can cause a Sudden Stratospheric Warming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_stratospheric_warming http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36972 Earth’s Rotational Energy influences Plate Tectonics; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics “By analyzing the minute changes in travel times and wave shapes for each doublet, the researchers concluded that the Earth’s inner core is rotating faster than its surface by about 0.3-0.5 degrees per year. That may not seem like much, but it’s very fast compared to the movement of the Earth’s crust, which generally slips around only a few centimeters per year compared to the mantle below, said Xiaodong Song, a geologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and an author on the study. http://www.livescience.com/9313-earth-core-rotates-faster-surface-study-confirms.html The surface movement is called plate tectonics. It involves the shifting of about a dozen major plates and is what causes most earthquakes”; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake Volcanoes; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano and Mountain Formation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_formation which can influence the creation of Atmospheric Waves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_wave Lastly, Rotational Energy is the primary driver of Earth’s Dynamo; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory which generates Earth’s Magnetic Field; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field and is primarily responsible for the Earthy behaviors of the Magnetosphere; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere with certain secular variations in Earth’s magnetic field originating from ocean flow/circulation; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090622-earths-core-dynamo.html http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/11/6/063015/fulltext though Leif Svalgaard notes that these are minor variations, as the magnetic field originating from ocean flow/circulation “is 1000 times smaller than the main field generated in the core.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/30/earths-climate-system-is-ridiculously-complex-with-draft-link-tutorial/#comment-707971 Earth Core Changes: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42580 appear “to be generated in the Earth’s core by a dynamo process, associated with the circulation of liquid metal in the core, driven by internal heat sources”. “Molten iron flowing in the outer core generates the Earth’s geodynamo, leading to a planetary-scale magnetic field. Beyond this, though, geophysicists know very little for certain about the field, such as its strength in the core or why its orientation fluctuates regularly. Researchers do suspect, however, that field variations are strongly linked with changing conditions within the molten core.” These core changes influence the Magnetosphere; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere including movement of the Geomagnetic Poles: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/GeomagneticPoles.shtml http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091224-north-pole-magnetic-russia-earth-core.html Also of note, “Over millions of years, [Earth's] rotation is significantly slowed by gravitational interactions with the Moon: see tidal acceleration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration “Tidal acceleration is an effect of the tidal forces between an orbiting natural satellite (e.g. the Moon), and the primary planet that it orbits (e.g. the Earth). The “acceleration” is usually negative, as it causes a gradual slowing and recession of a satellite in a prograde orbit away from the primary, and a corresponding slowdown of the primary’s rotation. The process eventually leads to tidal locking of first the smaller, and later the larger body. The Earth-Moon system is the best studied case.” “The presence of the moon (which has about 1/81 the mass of the Earth), is slowing Earth’s rotation and lengthening the day by about 2 ms every one hundred years.” Length of Day; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length Earth’s rotation is slowing “due to a transfer of Earth’s rotational momentum to the Moon’s orbital momentum as tidal friction slows the Earth’s rotation. That increase in the Moon’s speed is causing it to slowly recede from Earth (about 4 cm per year), increasing its orbital period and the length of a month as well.” “The slowing rotation of the Earth results in a longer day as well as a longer month. Once the length of a day equals the length of a month, the tidal friction mechanism will cease. (ie. Once your speed on the track matches the speed of the horses, you can’t gain any more speed with your lasso trick.) That’s been projected to happen once the day and month both equal about 47 (current) days, billions of years in the future. If the Earth and Moon still exist, the Moon’s distance will have increased to about 135% of its current value.” http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae695.cfm “However some large scale events, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, have caused the rotation to speed up by around 3 microseconds.[21] Post-glacial rebound, ongoing since the last Ice age, is changing the distribution of the Earth’s mass thus affecting the Moment of Inertia of the Earth and, by the Conservation of Angular Momentum, the Earth’s rotation period.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation 2. Orbital Energy, Orbital Period, Elliptical Orbits (Eccentricity), Tilt (Obliquity) and Wobble (Axial precession): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_orbital_energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synodic http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html creates Earth’s seasons; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season which drives annual changes in Arctic Sea Ice; and Antarctic Sea Ice; the freezing and melting of which helps to drive the Thermohaline Circulation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation and can result in the formation of Polynyas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynya Earth’s orbit around the Sun, Earth’s tilt, Earth’s wobble and the Moon’s orbit around Earth, Earth’s Rotation, and the gravity of the Moon, Sun and Earth, act in concert to determine the constantly evolving Tidal Force on Earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force This Tidal Force is influenced by variations in Lunar Orbit; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon as seen in the Lunar Phases; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase Lunar Precession; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_precession Lunar Node; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_node Saros cycles; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_cycle and Inex cycles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inex The combined cycles of the Saros and Inex Cycles can be visualized here: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/image/SEpanoramaGvdB-big.JPG Over longer time frames changes to Earth’s orbit, tilt and wobble called Milankovitch cycles; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles may be responsible for the periods of Glaciation (Ice Ages); http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm that Earth has experienced for the last several million years of its climatic record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age Also of note, over very long time frames, “the Moon is spiraling away from Earth at an average rate of 3.8 cm per year”; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_%28astronomy%29 http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124 3. Gravitation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation The gravity of the Moon, Sun and Earth, Earth’s rotation, Earth’s orbit around the Sun, Earth’s tilt, Earth’s wobble and the Moon’s orbit around Earth act in concert to determine the constantly evolving Tidal Force on Earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force This tidal force results in that result in Earth’s Ocean Tide; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide http://www.themcdonalds.net/richard/astro/papers/602-tides-web.pdf Atmospheric Tide; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_tide Earth Tide; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide and Magma Tide: http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7005r0273703250/ Earth’s Gravity; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Gravitational_or_buoyant_convection http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=205 in concert with Tidal Forces, influence Earth’s Ocean Circulation; http://www.eoearth.org/article/Ocean_circulation which influences Oceanic Oscillations including El Niño/La Niña; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Decadal_Oscillation the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Multidecadal_Oscillation the Indian_Ocean_Dipole (IOD)/Indian Ocean Oscillation (IOO) and; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_Dipole can result in the formation of Polynyas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynya Gravity Waves; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave which may be partially responsible for the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-biennial_oscillation “on an air–sea interface are called surface gravity waves or Surface Waves”; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_wave “while internal gravity waves are called Inertial Waves”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_waves “Rosby Waves; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossby_waves Geostrophic Currents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostrophic and Geostrophic Wind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostrophic_wind are examples of inertial waves. Inertial waves are also likely to exist in the core of the Earth” Earth’s gravity is the primary driver of Plate Tectonics; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics “The Slab Pull; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slab_pull force is a tectonic plate force due to subduction. Plate motion is partly driven by the weight of cold, dense plates sinking into the mantle at trenches. This force and the slab suction force account for most of the overall force acting on plate tectonics, and the Ridge Push; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridge_push force accounts for 5 to 10% of the overall force.” Isostasy also exists whereby a “state of gravitational equilibrium between the earth’s lithosphere and asthenosphere such that the tectonic plates “float” at an elevation which depends on their thickness and density.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy Plate Tectonics drive “cycles of ocean basin growth and destruction, known as Wilson cycles; http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/fichter/Wilson/Wilson.html involving continental rifting; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rift seafloor-spreading; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading subduction; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction and collision.”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_collision “Climate change on ultra-long time scales (tens of millions of years) are more than likely connected to plate tectonics.” “Through the course of a Wilson cycle continents collide and split apart, mountains are uplifted and eroded, and ocean basins open and close. The re-distribution and changing size and elevation of continental land masses may have caused climate change on long time scales”; http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html a process called the Supercontinent Cycle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_cycle Earth’s gravity is responsible for Katabatic Wind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katabatic_wind 4. Solar Energy;; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy results is Solar Radiation/Sunlight; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation which varies based upon 11 and 22 year cycles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle Total Solar Irradiance (TSI); http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/solarirrad.html appears to fluctuate “by approximately 0.1% or about 1.3 Watts per square meter (W/m2) peak-to-trough during the 11-year sunspot cycle”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation Solar Energy also drives the Hydrological/Water Cycle; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrological_cycle within the Hydrosphere; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrosphere as Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) causes evaporation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation that drives Cloud formation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud results in Precipitation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation_%28meteorology%29 that results in the Water Distribution on Earth; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_distribution_on_Earth creates surface Runoff; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runoff_%28water%29 which result in Rivers; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River and drives Erosion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erosion Solar energy is also “The driving force behind atmospheric circulation is solar energy, which heats the atmosphere with different intensities at the equator, the middle latitudes, and the poles.” http://www.scienceclarified.com/As-Bi/Atmospheric-Circulation.html Atmospheric Circulation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation includes Hadley Cells; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell Ferrel Cells; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation#Ferrel_cell Polar Cells; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_cells all of which help to create Wind; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind that influence Surface Currents; http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/ocean_currents.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_current through Ekman Transport; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekman_transport http://oceanmotion.org/html/background/ocean-in-motion.htm and also cause Langmuir circulations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langmuir_circulation Solar energy drives the Brewer Dobson Circulation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewer-Dobson_circulation which influences Polar Vortices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/polar-vortex/ Atmospheric Waves; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_wave including Atmospheric Tides; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_tide evaporation and condensation that may help to drive changes in Atmospheric Pressure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/24015/2010/acpd-10-24015-2010.pdf and Atmospheric Escape; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape Solar Ultraviolet (UV) radiation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet appears to vary by approximately 10% during the solar cycle; http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solarcycle-sorce.html has been hypothesized to influence Earth’s climate; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/courtillot-on-the-solar-uv-climate-connection/ however Leif Svalgaard argues that, This is well-trodden ground. Nothing new to add, just the same old, tired arguments. Perhaps a note on EUV: as you can see here (slide 13) http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2008ScienceMeeting/doc/Session1/S1_03_Kopp.pdf the energy in the EUV band [and other UV bands] is very tiny; many orders of magnitude less than what shines down on our heads each day. So a larger solar cycle variation of EUV does not make any significant difference in the energy budget. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/courtillot-on-the-solar-uv-climate-connection/#comment-636477 Additionally variations in Ultraviolet (UV) radiation may influence the break down of Methane; (Source TBD) Infrared Radiation; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared Solar – Wind; http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast13dec99_1/ Solar – Coronal Holes; http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/chole.html Solar – Solar Energetic Particles (SEP); http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/sep.html Solar – Coronal Mass Ejection; http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMF75BNJTF_index_0.html http://www.ratedesi.com/video/v/8AuCE_NNEaM/Sun-Erupts-to-Life-Unleashes-a-Huge-CME-on-13-April-2010 Solar Magnetosphere Breach; Solar Polar Field Reversal; http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast15feb_1/ Solar Sector Boundary; http://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/focus-areas/magnetosphere-ionosphere/ Grand Minimum; Leif Svalgaard says: February 6, 2011 at 8:26 pm If L&P are correct and sunspots become effectively] invisible [not gone] it might mean another Grand Minimum lasting perhaps 50 years. During this time the solar cycle is still operating, cosmic rays are still modulated, and the solar wind is still buffeting the Earth.” “It will lead to a cooling of a couple of tenths of a degree.” Solar Influences on Climate: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009RG000282.pdf Statistical issues about solar–climate relations http://www.leif.org/EOS/Yiou-565-2010.pdf 5. Geothermal Energy; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy influences Earth’s climate especially when released by Volcanoes; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano “which are generally found where tectonic plates are diverging; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_boundary or converging”; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_boundary however, “intraplate volcanism has also been postulated to be caused by mantle plumes”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_plume “These so-called “hotspots”; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotspot_%28geology%29 for example Hawaii, are postulated to arise from upwelling diapirs; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapir from the core-mantle boundary, 3,000 km deep in the Earth.” Volcanoes have been shown to influence Earth’s climate; http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm including in the infamous Year Without a Summer; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer which was partially caused by the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora and is called a Volcanic Winter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter “Volcanic Ash; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_ash particles have a maximum residence time in the troposphere of a few weeks. The finest Tephera; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tephra remain in the stratosphere for only a few months, they have only minor climatic effects, and they can be spread around the world by high-altitude winds. This suspended material contributes to spectacular sunsets. “The greatest volcanic impact upon the earth’s short term weather patterns is caused by sulfur dioxide gas;” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide “In the cold lower atmosphere, it is converted to Sulfuric Acid; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid sulfuric acid by the sun’s rays reacting with stratospheric water vapor to form sulfuric acid aerosol layers. The aerosol remains in suspension long after solid ash particles have fallen to earth and forms a layer of sulfuric acid droplets between 15 to 25 kilometers up. Fine ash particles from an eruption column fall out too quickly to significantly cool the atmosphere over an extended period of time, no matter how large the eruption. Sulfur aerosols last many years, and several historic eruptions show a good correlation of sulfur dioxide layers in the atmosphere with a decrease in average temperature decrease of subsequent years. The close correlation was first established after the 1963 eruption of Agung volcano in Indonesia when it was found that sulfur dioxide reached the stratosphere and stayed as a sulfuric acid aerosol. Without replenishment, the sulfuric acid aerosol layer around the earth is gradually depleted, but it is renewed by each eruption rich in sulfur dioxide. This was confirmed by data collected after the eruptions of El Chichon, Mexico (1982) and Pinatubo, Philippines (1991), both of which were high-sulfur compound carriers like Agung, Indonesia.” http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm There is also some evidence that if “volcanic activity was high enough, then a water vapor anomaly would be introduced into the lower stratosphere before the anomaly due to the previous eruption had disappeared. The result would be threefold in the long term: stratospheric cooling, stratospheric humidification, and surface warming due to the positive radiative forcing associated with the water vapor.” http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016%3C3525%3AAGSOVE%3E2.0.CO%3B2#h1 Geothermic Energy can also warm the atmosphere through Hot Springs; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_springs or warm the ocean through Hydrothermal Vents; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent which can be a factor in Hydrothermal Circulations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_circulation 6. Outer Space/Cosmic/Galactic Influences; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy including Asteroids; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid Meteorites; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorite and Comets; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet can all significantly impact Earth’s climate upon impact. It has been hypothesized that Galactic Cosmic Rays; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_cosmic_ray http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray modulated by Solar Wind, may influence cloud formation on Earth: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/a-link-between-the-sun-cosmic-rays-aerosols-and-liquid-water-clouds-appears-to-exist-on-a-global-scale/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/ Galactic Magnetic Fields also result in the; http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields Galactic Tide; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_tide which may influence the hypothesized Oort cloud; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_Cloud “Besides the galactic tide, the main trigger for sending comets into the inner Solar System is believed to be interaction between the Sun’s Oort cloud and the gravitational fields of near-by stars or giant molecular clouds.” Also Cosmic Dust; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_dust “is a type of dust composed of particles in space which are a few molecules to 0.1 µm in size. Cosmic dust can be further distinguished by its astronomical location; for example: intergalactic dust, interstellar dust, interplanetary dust (such as in the zodiacal cloud) and circumplanetary dust (such as in a planetary ring).” “Depending on their size and overall number, cosmic dust and other particles in the atmosphere have the potential to change Earth’s climate. They can reflect sunlight, which cools the Earth, absorb sunlight, which warms the atmosphere, and act as a blanket for the planet by trapping any heat it gives off. They can also facilitate the formation of rain clouds.” http://www.space.com/1484-source-cosmic-dust.html In addition, “a study of astronomical and geological data reveals that cosmic ray electrons and electromagnetic radiation from a similar outburst of our own Galactic core, impacted our Solar System near the end of the last ice age. This cosmic ray event spanned a period of several thousand years and climaxed around 14,200 years ago. Although far less intense than the PG 0052+251 quasar outburst, it was, nevertheless, able to substantially affect the Earth’s climate and trigger a solar-terrestrial conflagration the initiated the worst animal extinction episode of the Tertiary period. The effects on the Sun and on the Earth’s climate were not due to the Galactic cosmic rays themselves, but to the cosmic dust that these cosmic rays transported into the Solar System. Observations have shown that the Solar System is presently immersed in a dense cloud of cosmic dust, material that is normally kept at bay by the outward pressure of the solar wind. But, with the arrival of this Galactic cosmic ray volley, the solar wind was overpowered and large quantities of this material were pushed inward. The Sun was enveloped in a cocoon of dust that caused its spectrum to shift toward the infrared. In addition, the dust grains filling the Solar System scattered radiation back to the Earth, producing an “interplanetary hothouse effect” that substantially increased the influx of solar radiation to the Earth.” http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Galactic.html 7. Earth’s Magnetic Field; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field is primarily responsible for the Earthy behaviors of the Magnetosphere; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere with certain secular variations in Earth’s magnetic field originating from ocean flow/circulation; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090622-earths-core-dynamo.html http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/11/6/063015/fulltext though Leif Svalgaard notes that these are minor variations, as the magnetic field originating from ocean flow/circulation “is 1000 times smaller than the main field generated in the core.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/30/earths-climate-system-is-ridiculously-complex-with-draft-link-tutorial/#comment-707971 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field Earth Core Changes: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42580 appear “to be generated in the Earth’s core by a dynamo process, associated with the circulation of liquid metal in the core, driven by internal heat sources”. “Molten iron flowing in the outer core generates the Earth’s geodynamo, leading to a planetary-scale magnetic field. Beyond this, though, geophysicists know very little for certain about the field, such as its strength in the core or why its orientation fluctuates regularly. Researchers do suspect, however, that field variations are strongly linked with changing conditions within the molten core.” These core changes influence the Magnetosphere; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere including movement of the Geomagnetic Poles: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/GeomagneticPoles.shtml http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091224-north-pole-magnetic-russia-earth-core.html According to a 2009 Danish study “Is there a link between Earth’s magnetic field and low-latitude precipitation?” by Knudsen and Riisager, Geology, 2009. “The earth’s climate has been significantly affected by the planet’s magnetic field” “Our results show a strong correlation between the strength of the earth’s magnetic field and the amount of precipitation in the tropics,” one of the two Danish geophysicists behind the study, Mads Faurschou Knudsen of the geology department at Aarhus University in western Denmark, told the Videnskab journal.” http://www.spacedaily.com/2006/090112183735.ojdq7esu.html “Intriguingly, we observe a relatively good correlation between the high-resolution speleothem δ18O records and the dipole moment, suggesting that Earth’s magnetic field to some degree influenced low-latitude precipitation in the past. In addition to supporting the notion that variations in the geomagnetic field may have influenced Earth’s climate in the past, our study also provides some degree of support for the controversial link between GCR particles, cloud formation, and climate.” http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/37/1/71.abstract Also, according to the 2008 European Space Agency article; http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMQ8LKRQJF_index_0.html “Oxygen is constantly leaking out of Earth’s atmosphere and into space. Now, ESA’s formation-flying quartet of satellites, Cluster, has discovered the physical mechanism that is driving the escape. It turns out that the Earth’s own magnetic field is accelerating the oxygen away. 8. Atmospheric Composition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth Nitrogen (N2) represents approximately 780,840 ppmv or 78.084% of Earth’s Atmosphere; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen Oxygen (O2) represents approximately 209,460 ppmv or 20.946%; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen Argon (Ar) represents approximately 9,340 ppmv or 0.9340%; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon Carbon Dioxide (CO2) represents approximately 390 ppmv or 0.039%; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide contributes to the Greenhouse Effect; http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm and influences the rate of Plant Growth; http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm Neon (Ne) represents approximately18.18 ppmv or 0.001818%; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neon Helium (He) represents approximately 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium “In the Earth’s atmosphere, the concentration of Helium by volume is only 5.2 parts per million.[66][67] The concentration is low and fairly constant despite the continuous production of new helium because most helium in the Earth’s atmosphere escapes into space by several processes.[68][69][70] In the Earth’s heterosphere, a part of the upper atmosphere, helium and other lighter gases are the most abundant elements.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium Krypton (Kr) represents approximately 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krypton Methane (CH4) represents approximately 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane contributes to the Greenhouse Effect; http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm Hydrogen (H2) represents approximately 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen Nitrous Oxide (N2O) represents approximately 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide contributes to the Greenhouse Effect; http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm Ozone (O3) represents approximately 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0 to 7×10−6%); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) represents approximately 0.02 ppmv (2×10−6%) (0.000002%); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxide Iodine (I2) represents approximately 0.01 ppmv (1×10−6%) (0.000001%) and; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine Ammonia (NH3) represents a trace amount of Earth’s Atmosphere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia Additional atmosphere components includes Water vapor (H2O) that represents approximately 0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor; “Water Vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Role_of_water_vapor Aerosols; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol that “act as cloud condensation nuclei, they alter albedo (both directly and indirectly via clouds) and hence Earth’s radiation budget, and they serve as catalysts of or sites for atmospheric chemistry reactions.” “Aerosols play a critical role in the formation of clouds; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clouds Clouds form as parcels of air cool and the water vapor in them condenses, forming small liquid droplets of water. However, under normal circumstances, these droplets form only where there is some “disturbance” in the otherwise “pure” air. In general, aerosol particles provide this “disturbance”. The particles around which cloud droplets coalesce are called cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) or sometimes “cloud seeds”. Amazingly, in the absence of CCN, air containing water vapor needs to be “supersaturated” to a humidity of about 400% before droplets spontaneously form! So, in almost all circumstances, aerosols play a vital role in the formation of clouds.” http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/aerosol_cloud_nucleation_dimming.html Particulates; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates including Soot/Black Carbon; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon Sand; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand Dust; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust “Volcanic Ash; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_ash particles have a maximum residence time in the troposphere of a few weeks. The finest Tephera; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tephra remain in the stratosphere for only a few months, they have only minor climatic effects, and they can be spread around the world by high-altitude winds. This suspended material contributes to spectacular sunsets. The major climate influence from volcanic eruptions is caused by gaseous sulfur compounds, chiefly Sulfur Dioxide; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide which reacts with OH and water in the stratosphere to create sulfate aerosols with a residence time of about 2–3 years.” “Emission rates of [Sulfur Dioxide] SO2 from an active volcano range from 10 million tonnes/day according to the style of volcanic activity and type and volume of magma involved. For example, the large explosive eruption of Mount Pinatubo on 15 June 1991 expelled 3-5 km3 of dacite magma and injected about 20 million metric tons of SO2 into the stratosphere. The sulfur aerosols resulted in a 0.5-0.6°C cooling of the Earth’s surface in the Northern Hemisphere.” http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php “The 1815 eruption [of Mount Tambora] is rated 7 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index, the only such eruption since the Lake Taupo eruption in about 180 AD. With an estimated ejecta volume of 160 cubic kilometers, Tambora’s 1815 outburst was the largest volcanic eruption in recorded history.” “The eruption created global climate anomalies that included the phenomenon known as “volcanic winter”; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter 1816 became known as the “Year Without a Summer”; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer because of the effect on North American and European weather. Agricultural crops failed and livestock died in much of the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in the worst famine of the 19th century.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tambora “In the spring and summer of 1816, a persistent “dry fog” was observed in the northeastern US. The fog reddened and dimmed the sunlight, such that sunspots were visible to the naked eye. Neither wind nor rainfall dispersed the “fog”. It has been characterized as a stratospheric sulfate aerosol veil.” “The greatest volcanic impact upon the earth’s short term weather patterns is caused by sulfur dioxide gas;” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide “In the cold lower atmosphere, it is converted to Sulfuric Acid; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid sulfuric acid by the sun’s rays reacting with stratospheric water vapor to form sulfuric acid aerosol layers. The aerosol remains in suspension long after solid ash particles have fallen to earth and forms a layer of sulfuric acid droplets between 15 to 25 kilometers up. Fine ash particles from an eruption column fall out too quickly to significantly cool the atmosphere over an extended period of time, no matter how large the eruption. Sulfur aerosols last many years, and several historic eruptions show a good correlation of sulfur dioxide layers in the atmosphere with a decrease in average temperature decrease of subsequent years. The close correlation was first established after the 1963 eruption of Agung volcano in Indonesia when it was found that sulfur dioxide reached the stratosphere and stayed as a sulfuric acid aerosol. Without replenishment, the sulfuric acid aerosol layer around the earth is gradually depleted, but it is renewed by each eruption rich in sulfur dioxide. This was confirmed by data collected after the eruptions of El Chichon, Mexico (1982) and Pinatubo, Philippines (1991), both of which were high-sulfur compound carriers like Agung, Indonesia.” http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm There is also some evidence that if “volcanic activity was high enough, then a water vapor anomaly would be introduced into the lower stratosphere before the anomaly due to the previous eruption had disappeared. The result would be threefold in the long term: stratospheric cooling, stratospheric humidification, and surface warming due to the positive radiative forcing associated with the water vapor.” http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016%3C3525%3AAGSOVE%3E2.0.CO%3B2#h1 9. Albedo “or reflection coefficient, is the diffuse reflectivity or reflecting power of a surface. It is defined as the ratio of reflected radiation from the surface to incident radiation upon it. Being a dimensionless fraction, it may also be expressed as a percentage, and is measured on a scale from zero for no reflecting power of a perfectly black surface, to 1 for perfect reflection of a white surface.”Wikipedia – Albedo “The role of Clouds “in regulating weather and climate remains a leading source of uncertainty in projections of global warming.” “Different types of clouds exhibit different reflectivity, theoretically ranging in albedo from a minimum of near 0 to a maximum approaching 0.8.” Wikipedia – Albedo#Clouds “Cloud Albedo varies from less than 10% to more than 90% and depends on drop sizes, liquid water or ice content, thickness of the cloud, and the sun’s zenith angle. The smaller the drops and the greater the liquid water content, the greater the cloud albedo, if all other factors are the same.” Wikipedia – Cloud Albedo “On any given day, about half of Earth is covered by clouds, which reflect more sunlight than land and water. Clouds keep Earth cool by reflecting sunlight, but they can also serve as blankets to trap warmth.” Live Science “Low, thick clouds primarily reflect solar radiation and cool the surface of the Earth. High, thin clouds primarily transmit incoming solar radiation; at the same time, they trap some of the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and radiate it back downward, thereby warming the surface of the Earth. Whether a given cloud will heat or cool the surface depends on several factors, including the cloud’s altitude, its size, and the make-up of the particles that form the cloud. The balance between the cooling and warming actions of clouds is very close although, overall, averaging the effects of all the clouds around the globe, cooling predominates.” NASA Earth Observatory – Clouds Snow “albedos can be as high as 0.9; this, however, is for the ideal example: fresh deep snow over a featureless landscape. Over Antarctica they average a little more than 0.8. Wikipedia – Albedo#Snow “The albedo for different surface conditions on the sea ice range widely, from roughly 85 per cent of radiation reflected for snow-covered ice to 7 per cent for open water. These two surfaces cover the range from the largest to the smallest albedo on earth.” GRID-Arendal – United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) “Sea ice has a much higher albedo compared to other earth surfaces, such as the surrounding ocean. A typical ocean albedo is approximately 0.06, while bare sea ice varies from approximately 0.5 to 0.7. This means that the ocean reflects only 6 percent of the incoming solar radiation and absorbs the rest, while sea ice reflects 50 to 70 percent of the incoming energy. The sea ice absorbs less solar energy and keeps the surface cooler. snow has an even higher albedo than sea ice, and so thick sea ice covered with snow reflects as much as 90 percent of the incoming solar radiation. This serves to insulate the sea ice, maintaining cold temperatures and delaying ice melt in the summer. After the snow does begin to melt, and because shallow melt ponds have an albedo of approximately 0.2 to 0.4, the surface albedo drops to about 0.75. As melt ponds grow and deepen, the surface albedo can drop to 0.15. As a result, melt ponds are associated with higher energy absorption and a more rapid ice melt.” http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/albedo.html “It should be pointed out that these planetary albedos are averages. Taking Earth as an example, clouds vary from 0.4 to 0.8, snow varies from 0.4 to 0.85, forests vary from 0.04 to 0.1, grass is about 0.15, and water varies from 0.02 with the Sun directly overhead to 0.8 at low levels of incidence. So the Earth’s albedo varies, and depends on the extent of cloudiness, snowfall, and the Sun’s angle of incidence on the oceans. With an average albedo of 0.37, 63% of incoming solar energy contributes to the warmth of our planet.” http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut26-1.htm “Ocean albedo varies not only with zenith angle, as above, but also tides, clouds, spindrift, plankton, other particulates, and temperature, Wind direction and velocity also have a major effect on waves and chop, affecting reflectance. At high zenith angles, the reflectance of still water, as in small ponds, etc., is close to 1.00. Choppy seas can have fairly high albedo. See also: http://snowdog.larc.nasa.gov/jin/albedofind.html http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/21/the-ridiculousness-continues-climate-complexity-compiled/#comment-872099 Also Particulates such as Soot/ Black_carbon warm “the Earth by absorbing heat in the atmosphere and by reducing albedo, the ability to reflect sunlight, when deposited on snow and ice. Black carbon stays in the atmosphere for only several days to weeks, whereas CO2 has an atmospheric lifetime of more than 100 years.” “Estimates of black carbon’s globally averaged direct radiative forcing vary from the IPCC’s estimate of + 0.34 watts per square meter (W/m2) ± 0.25, to a more recent estimate by V. Ramanathan and G. Carmichael of 0.9 W/m2.” Wikipedia – Black Carbon “Blooms of snow algea can reduce the surface albedo (light reflectance) of snow and ice, and largely affect their melting (Thomas and Duval, 1995; Hoham and Duval, 2001). For example, some glaciers in Himalayas are covered with a large amount of dark-colored biogenic material (cryoconite) derived from snow algae and bacteria (Kohshima et al., 1993; Takeuchi et al., 2001). The albedo of the intact surfaces bearing the cryoconite was substantially lower than that of the surface from which the cryoconite was artificially removed (5% versus 37%). The melting rates of the intact surfaces were reported to be 3 times larger than that of the surfaces without the cryoconite. Thus, snow algal activity possibly affects heat budget and mass balance of glaciers.” Department of Earth Sciences – Chiba University Phytoplankton may influence Earth’s climate. A recent study used “a synergistic analysis of satellite observations (MODIS, SeaWiFS, AIRS, SSM/I and CERES)” to try to show that “dimethylsulfide (DMS) and isoprene emissions by marine phytoplankton” “into the atmosphere strongly influences cloud properties within a broad latitude belt in the Southern Hemisphere during the austral summer.” They “detected indirect aerosol effects over the Southern Ocean from 45°S to 65°S, especially in regions with plankton blooms, indicated by high chlorophyll-a concentration in seawater. The strong increase in cloud condensation nuclei column content from 2.0 × 108 to more than 5.0 × 108 CCN/cm2 for a chlorophyll increase from 0.3 to about 0.5 mg/m3 in these regions decreases cloud droplet effective radius and increases cloud optical thickness for water clouds. Consequently, the upward short-wave radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere increases.” There analysis found “reduced precipitation over the Antarctic Polar Frontal Zone during strong plankton blooms.” Krüger and Graßl, Geophysical Research Letters, 2011 “Even small shear rates can increase backscattering from blooms of large phytoplankton by more than 30 percent,” said Roman Stocker, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at MIT and lead author on a paper about this work. “This implies that fluid flow, which is typically neglected in models of marine optics, may exert an important control on light propagation, influencing the rates of carbon fixation and how we estimate these rates via remote sensing.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 10. Biology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology “Metabolism is the set of chemical reactions that happen in the cells of living organisms to sustain life.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolism “Phototrophs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoautotroph are the organisms (usually plants) that carry out photosynthesis; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis to acquire energy. They use the energy from sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into organic materials to be utilized in cellular functions such as biosynthesis and respiration.” “In plants, algae, and cyanobacteria, photosynthesis uses carbon dioxide and water, releasing oxygen as a waste product.” Chemoautotrophs; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotroph are “organisms that obtain carbon through Chemosynthesis; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemosynthesis are phylogenetically diverse, but groups that include conspicuous or biogeochemically-important taxa include the sulfur-oxidizing gamma and epsilon proteobacteria, the Aquificaeles, the Methanogenic archaea and the neutrophilic iron-oxidizing bacteria.” Bacteria – TBD Fungi – TBD Protozoa – TBD Chromista – TBD Animal – Anthropogenic: Carbon Dioxide; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide contributes to the Greenhouse Effect; http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm and influences the rate of plant growth ; http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm Methane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane Nitrous Oxide Ozone Soot/ Black_carbon Aerosols/ Icebreakers/Arctic Shipping/Fishing/Cruise-Line Transits Contrails Land Use Changes Deforestation Reforestation Cultivation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_cultivation Reclamation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reclamation Urban Heat Islands Run Off From Asphalt Sewage/Wastewater Treatment Discharge Fossil Fuel Energy Generation and Waste Heat Nuclear Power Generation – Including Ships Renewables – Wind Farms, Solar Arrays, Dams and Ethanol “In 2008, total worldwide energy consumption was 474 exajoules (474×1018 J=132,000 TWh). This is equivalent to an average energy consumption rate of 15 terawatts (1.504×1013 W).” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption etc. “Metabolism is the set of chemical reactions that happen in the cells of living organisms to sustain life.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolism “The basal metabolic rate of a human is about 1,300-1,500 kcal/day for an adult female and 1,600-1,800 kcal/day for an adult male.” http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2009/VickieWu.shtml Animal – Non-Anthropogenic including Plankton Beaver (Genus Castor) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver etc. 11. Chemical Fossil Fuels: Coal Oil shale Petrochemicals - Petroleum - Mineral Oil Asphalt Tar Pits/Sands Methane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane etc. Iron Fertilization “occurs naturally when upwellings bring nutrient-rich water to the surface, as occurs when ocean currents meet an ocean bank or a sea mount. This form of fertilization produces the world’s largest marine habitats. Fertilization can also occur when weather carries wind blown <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust“>dust long distances over the ocean, or iron-rich minerals are carried into the ocean by glaciers,[3] rivers and icebergs. Iron Fertilization can result from Geo-engineering; http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=34167 Reactions: Combustion - Forest Fires - Fossil Fuels - Methane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane etc. “Photosynthesis; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis is a chemical process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight.” “Chemosynthesis; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemosynthesis is the biological conversion of one or more carbon molecules (usually carbon dioxide or methane) and nutrients into organic matter using the oxidation of inorganic molecules (e.g. hydrogen gas, hydrogen sulfide) or methane as a source of energy, rather than sunlight, as in photosynthesis.” Conversion of Methane, CO2, etc. 12. Physics Temperature http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/01/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature Variations in atmospheric and oceanic temperature can have significant impacts on Earth’s climate, including cloud cover, rainfall, Flora, Fauna, Ocean Circulation and Marine Biology. These variables can in turn affect Albedo and Transpiration. Length of Day; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length “The length of the day varies when any mass on or in the Earth moves, affecting the state of its angular momentum. Take weather in the atmosphere, for instance. The seasonal changes in the trade winds and monsoons have a well-known effect on the length-of-day over the course of the year. The IERS calculates the angular momentum of the whole atmosphere every six hours, allowing the signal of large-scale weather systems to be detected. The tides of the ocean have the long-term effect of slowing the Earth down and speeding up the Moon (which thus moves away from Earth a few centimeters per year). They also have short-term effects that are being modeled more accurately all the time. Changes in ocean currents change the length-of-day. Our computer models of ocean circulation are getting good enough, thanks to centimeter-precise measurements of the sea surface, that we can analyze this signal too. The National Earth Orientation Service has a page explaining this stuff in clear detail. (These are also the people who announce leap seconds.) Other factors affecting the LOD data include rises and subsidences of the land surface, the buildup of glaciers, large earthquakes, large-scale pumping of groundwater and construction of reservoirs, and the shape of the ocean’s surface in response to air masses above it. Each of these can be estimated and their signals extracted from the raw data, untangling the many mixed threads of information in the LOD record. One by one, the sources of variation can be determined and subtracted out, leaving another level to be analyzed. The last level of variation, a slow drift on the decade scale, seems to be related to the motion of liquid iron in the Earth’s core. This layer allows the solid inner core to rotate freely with respect to the outer mantle and crust. Thus every twist and torque exerted by the atmosphere, oceans, Moon, Sun, other planets and the rest of the universe stirs that inner iron ocean, affecting the great dynamo that drives the Earth’s magnetic field.” http://geology.about.com/od/tectonicsdeepearth/a/lodresearch.htm In this paper, “Are Changes in the Earth’s Rotation Rate Externally Driven and Do They Affect Climate?”, by Ian R. G. Wilson, the General Science Journal, 2011, “evidence is presented to show that the phases of two of the Earth’s major climate systems, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), are related to changes in the Earth’s rotation rate. We find that the winter NAO index depends upon the time rate of change of the Earth’s length of day (LOD). In addition, we find that there is a remarkable correlation between the years where the phase of the PDO is most positive and the years where the deviation of the Earth’s LOD from its long-term trend is greatest.” http://www.wbabin.net/files/4424_wilson.pdf In this paper, “On the correlation between air temperature and the core Earth processes: Further investigations using a continuous wavelet analysis” by Stefano Sello, Mathematical and Physical Models, 2011 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.4924.pdf The authors main results are: ”…the detection of a broadband variability centered at 78 yr (common variability ranges from 67 to 86 yr from SSA method). Oscillations in global temperatures with periods in the 65-70 yr are well known. Our work suggests that the same core processes that are known to affect Earth’s rotation and magnetic field may also contribute to the excitation of such modes, possibly through geomagnetic modulation of near-Earth charged particle fluxes that may influence cloud nucleation processes, and hence the planetary albedo, on regional as well as global scales.” Pressure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure States of Matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter Heat Conduction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_conduction Convection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection Thermal Radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation Thermodynamics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics Entropy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy 13. Known unknowns Non-Equilibrium Pattern Systems, aka “nonlinear pattern formation in far-from-equilibrium dissipative systems” and “pattern formation in dissipative systems” “The spontaneous formation of spatio-temporal patterns can occur when a stationary state far from thermodynamic equilibrium is maintained through the dissipation of energy that is continuously fed into the system. While for closed systems the second law of thermodynamics requires relaxation to a state of maximal entropy, open systems are able to interchange matter and energy with their environment. By taking up energy of higher value (low entropy) and delivering energy of lower value (high entropy) they are able to export entropy, and thus to spontaneously develop structures characterized by a higher degree of order than present in the environment.” PhD thesis – “Controlling turbulence and pattern formation in chemical reaction” Matthias Bertram, https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9p_cojT-pflY2Y2MmZmMWQtOWQ0Mi00MzJkLTkyYmQtMWQ5Y2ExOTQ3ZDdm&hl=en_GB Examples of this effect can be seen in the following examples of Belousov-Zhabotinsky (BZ) reactions: Phil Salmon argues in this article; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/25/is-the-enso-a-nonlinear-oscillator-of-the-belousov-zhabotinsky-reaction-type/ that ENSO is a Non-Equilibrium Pattern System. “Of the class of known attractors of nonlinear oscillatory systems, the Lorenz and possibly Roessler attractors bear similarities to the attractor likely responsible for the alternating phases of La Nina and el Nino dominance that characterise the ENSO and constitute the PDO.” Here are several visualizations of Pacific Ocean Temperatures: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/etb58j1.gif?w=640 http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/tlon_heat.gif http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/sub_surf_mon.gif Uncertainty Randomness Evolution Infinite Iterations Chaos? 14. Unknown unknowns A lot of other things. General summaries of the potential variables involved in Earth’s climate system; http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/whatfactors.pdf http://ioc3.unesco.org/oopc/obs/ecv.php http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/21/the-ridiculousness-continues-climate-complexity-compiled/  Logged Body-by-Guinness Power User Posts: 2788  « Reply #627 on: January 30, 2012, 07:56:54 AM » 2nd post. And the problem of establishing a planetary baseline upon which all the confounding variables would then be added: Earth’s baseline black-body model – “a damn hard problem” Posted on January 12, 2012 by Anthony Watts The Earth only has an absorbing area equal to a two dimensional disk, rather than the surface of a sphere. By Robert G. Brown, Duke University (elevated from a WUWT comment) I spent what little of last night that I semi-slept in a learning-dream state chewing over Caballero’s book and radiative transfer, and came to two insights. First, the baseline black-body model (that leads to T_b = 255K) is physically terrible, as a baseline. It treats the planet in question as a nonrotating superconductor of heat with no heat capacity. The reason it is terrible is that it is absolutely incorrect to ascribe 33K as even an estimate for the “greenhouse warming” relative to this baseline, as it is a completely nonphysical baseline; the 33K relative to it is both meaningless and mixes both heating and cooling effects that have absolutely nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. More on that later. I also understand the greenhouse effect itself much better. I may write this up in my own words, since I don’t like some of Caballero’s notation and think that the presentation can be simplified and made more illustrative. I’m also thinking of using it to make a “build-a-model” kit, sort of like the “build-a-bear” stores in the malls. Start with a nonrotating superconducting sphere, zero albedo, unit emissivity, perfect blackbody radiation from each point on the sphere. What’s the mean temperature? Now make the non-rotating sphere perfectly non-conducting, so that every part of the surface has to be in radiative balance. What’s the average temperature now? This is a better model for the moon than the former, surely, although still not good enough. Let’s improve it. Now make the surface have some thermalized heat capacity — make it heat superconducting, but only in the vertical direction and presume a mass shell of some thickness that has some reasonable specific heat. This changes nothing from the previous result, until we make the sphere rotate. Oooo, yet another average (surface) temperature, this time the spherical average of a distribution that depends on latitude, with the highest temperatures dayside near the equator sometime after “noon” (lagged because now it takes time to raise the temperature of each block as the insolation exceeds blackbody loss, and time for it to cool as the blackbody loss exceeds radiation, and the surface is never at a constant temperature anywhere but at the poles (no axial tilt, of course). This is probably a very decent model for the moon, once one adds back in an albedo (effectively scaling down the fraction of the incoming power that has to be thermally balanced). One can for each of these changes actually compute the exact parametric temperature distribution as a function of spherical angle and radius, and (by integrating) compute the change in e.g. the average temperature from the superconducting perfect black body assumption. Going from superconducting planet to local detailed balance but otherwise perfectly insulating planet (nonrotating) simply drops the nightside temperature for exactly 1/2 the sphere to your choice of 3K or (easier to idealize) 0K after a very long time. This is bounded from below, independent of solar irradiance or albedo (or for that matter, emissivity). The dayside temperature, on the other hand, has a polar distribution with a pole facing the sun, and varies nonlinearly with irradiance, albedo, and (if you choose to vary it) emissivity. That pesky T^4 makes everything complicated! I hesitate to even try to assign the sign of the change in average temperature going from the first model to the second! Every time I think that I have a good heuristic argument for saying that it should be lower, a little voice tells me — T^4 — better do the damn integral because the temperature at the separator has to go smoothly to zero from the dayside and there’s a lot of low-irradiance (and hence low temperature) area out there where the sun is at five o’clock, even for zero albedo and unit emissivity! The only easy part is to obtain the spherical average we can just take the dayside average and divide by two… I’m not even happy with the sign for the rotating sphere, as this depends on the interplay between the time required to heat the thermal ballast given the difference between insolation and outgoing radiation and the rate of rotation. Rotate at infinite speed and you are back at the superconducting sphere. Rotate at zero speed and you’re at the static nonconducting sphere. Rotate in between and — damn — now by varying only the magnitude of the thermal ballast (which determines the thermalization time) you can arrange for even a rapidly rotating sphere to behave like the static nonconducting sphere and a slowly rotating sphere to behave like a superconducting sphere (zero heat capacity and very large heat capacity, respectively). Worse, you’ve changed the geometry of the axial poles (presumed to lie untilted w.r.t. the ecliptic still). Where before the entire day-night terminator was smoothly approaching T = 0 from the day side, now this is true only at the poles! The integral of the polar area (for a given polar angle d\theta) is much smaller than the integral of the equatorial angle, and on top of that one now has a smeared out set of steady state temperatures that are all functions of azimuthal angle \phi and polar angle \theta, one that changes nonlinearly as you crank any of: Insolation, albedo, emissivity, \omega (angular velocity of rotation) and heat capacity of the surface. And we haven’t even got an atmosphere yet. Or water. But at least up to this point, one can solve for the temperature distribution T(\theta,\phi,\alpha,S,\epsilon,c) exactly, I think. Furthermore, one can actually model something like water pretty well in this way. In fact, if we imagine covering the planet not with air but with a layer of water with a blackbody on the bottom and a thin layer of perfectly transparent saran wrap on top to prevent pesky old evaporation, the water becomes a contribution to the thermal ballast. It takes a lot longer to raise or lower the temperature of a layer of water a meter deep (given an imbalance between incoming radiation) than it does to raise or lower the temperature of maybe the top centimeter or two of rock or dirt or sand. A lot longer. Once one has a good feel for this, one could decorate the model with oceans and land bodies (but still prohibit lateral energy transfer and assume immediate vertical equilibration). One could let the water have the right albedo and freeze when it hits the right temperature. Then things get tough. You have to add an atmosphere. Damn. You also have to let the ocean itself convect, and have density, and variable depth. And all of this on a rotating sphere where things (air masses) moving up deflect antispinward (relative to the surface), things moving down deflect spinward, things moving north deflect spinward (they’re going to fast) in the northern hemisphere, things moving south deflect antispinward, as a function of angle and speed and rotational velocity. Friggin’ coriolis force, deflects naval artillery and so on. And now we’re going to differentially heat the damn thing so that turbulence occurs everywhere on all available length scales, where we don’t even have some simple symmetry to the differential heating any more because we might as well have let a five year old throw paint at the sphere to mark out where the land masses are versus the oceans, and or better yet given him some Tonka trucks and let him play in the spherical sandbox until he had a nice irregular surface and then filled the surface with water until it was 70% submerged or something. Ow, my aching head. And note well — we still haven’t turned on a Greenhouse Effect! And I now have nothing like a heuristic for radiant emission cooling even in the ideal case, because it is quite literally distilled, fractionated by temperature and height even without CO_2 per se present at all. Clouds. Air with a nontrivial short wavelength scattering cross-section. Energy transfer galore. And then, before we mess with CO_2, we have to take quantum mechanics and the incident spectrum into account, and start to look at the hitherto ignored details of the ground, air, and water. The air needs a lapse rate, which will vary with humidity and albedo and ground temperature and… The molecules in the air recoil when the scatter incoming photons, and if a collision with another air molecule occurs in the right time interval they will mutually absorb some or all of the energy instead of elastically scattering it, heating the air. It can also absorb one wavelength and emit a cascade of photons at a different wavelength (depending on its spectrum). Finally, one has to add in the GHGs, notably CO_2 (water is already there). They have the effect increasing the outgoing radiance from the (higher temperature) surface in some bands, and transferring some of it to CO_2 where it is trapped until it diffuses to the top of the CO_2 column, where it is emitted at a cooler temperature. The total power going out is thus split up, with that pesky blackbody spectrum modulated so that different frequencies have different effective temperatures, in a way that is locally modulated by — nearly everything. The lapse rate. Moisture content. Clouds. Bulk transport of heat up or down via convection. Bulk transport of heat up or down via caged radiation in parts of the spectrum. And don’t forget sideways! Everything is now circulating, wind and surface evaporation are coupled, the equilibration time for the ocean has stretched from “commensurate with the rotational period” for shallow seas to a thousand years or more so that the ocean is never at equilibrium, it is always tugging surface temperatures one way or the other with substantial thermal ballast, heat deposited not today but over the last week, month, year, decade, century, millennium. Yessir, a damn hard problem. Anybody who calls this settled science is out of their ever-loving mind. Note well that I still haven’t included solar magnetism or any serious modulation of solar irradiance, or even the axial tilt of the earth, which once again completely changes everything, because now the timescales at the poles become annual, and the north pole and south pole are not at all alike! Consider the enormous difference in their thermal ballast and oceanic heat transport and atmospheric heat transport! A hard problem. But perhaps I’ll try to tackle it, if I have time, at least through the first few steps outlined above. At the very least I’d like to have a better idea of the direction of some of the first few build-a-bear steps on the average temperature (while the term “average temperature” has some meaning, that is before making the system chaotic). rgb http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/earths-baseline-black-body-model-a-damn-hard-problem/  Logged DougMacG Power User Posts: 5953  « Reply #628 on: January 30, 2012, 01:14:12 PM » Those are some excellent posts today by BBG! I am looking forward to going back and re-reading more closely and saving for reference material. The earth warmed ever so slightly while CO2 levels reached 390 ppmv or 0.039% of earth's atmosphere. Causation isn't proved, but what else could it be? The science is settled? Not exactly. A large number of other known, poorly understood variables have been nicely identified and posted. Chuck answered honestly that he didn't know and neither does anyone else, but I am still waiting for the right answer from anyone to my 2-part question - what is the rate of warming and what part of that is directly attributable to the rise in CO2 from human fossil fuel use? (Show your work.) Also if ever answered, what is the margin of scientific error and what then is the change in the global warming rate for each significant political policy initiative as they come up. For example, the Keystone pipeline was blocked for AGW reasons. The US will instead buy and ship that oil in from further away while Canada will sell and ship that oil to Asia. We need to recalculate the new global warming rate taking that important new victory for Robert Redford, Al Gore and 'planetary concerns' into consideration. They fought and they fought for it and they won. We lost jobs, we lost easy access to a reliable and abundant source of demanded energy. We lost a cost advantage for American businesses and consumers and a corresponding enrichment to our neighbor, friend and ally to the north. So what exactly did we gain in the reduced rate of warming? Any honest answer to that will lead the reader to why we call it pathological science.  Logged G M Power User Posts: 12042  « Reply #629 on: February 12, 2012, 06:12:23 AM » First global warming disappears, then Chuck. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html  Logged DougMacG Power User Posts: 5953  « Reply #630 on: February 13, 2012, 01:36:54 PM » Russian Astrophysicist Predicts Global Cooling “We can expect the onset of a deep bicentennial minimum of total solar irradiance (TSI) in approximately 2042±11 and the 19th deep minimum of global temperature in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11. After the maximum of solar cycle 24, from approximately 2014 we can expect the start of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055±11.” –Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Russian Academy of Science, 1 February 2012 Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age Applied Physics Research, Vol. 4, No. 1 February 2012 Abstract: http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754 Full Study: http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754/10140  Logged ccp Power User Posts: 4089  « Reply #631 on: February 20, 2012, 02:40:35 PM » I am not for or against "climate change" resulting from human behavior. I am simply confused. ***Michael Mann Defends Climate Computer Models Penn State climate modeler Michael Mann talks about what computer models can tell us--and what they don't need to. David Biello reports January 10, 2012 | 120 "Even in high school my idea of a good time was sitting in front of a computer and solving problems." Climatologist Michael Mann. “And that has always been true. I love using computational methods to learn about the way, hopefully, the way the world actually works.” Some critics, such as physicist Freeman Dyson, charge that climate change science relies too much on such computer models. And even worse, that the climate scientists behind them are too much in love with their computational creations. Such mathematical approximations are crude, failing to capture the real world climate impacts of a cloud, for example. That makes them useful for understanding climate but not for predicting climate change, Dyson has argued. I asked Mann in a recent phone interview how he responded to such arguments. "I have to wonder if Freeman Dyson will get on an airplane or if he’ll drive a car because a lot of the modern day conveniences of life and a lot of our technological innovations of modern life are based on phenomena so complicated that we need to be able to construct models of them before we deploy that technology. “In the case of the climate, of course, there is only one Earth, so we can’t do experiments with multiple Earths and formulate the science of climate change as if it’s an entirely observationally based, controlled experiment. We need to rely on conceptual models of the system we’re studying and it’s no different in any other field of science. In fact, the way science progresses is by conceptual models being put forward and then testing them against observations. One of the most, I think, striking examples of that was just within the last month, this announcement, the Higgs Boson. “Its existence was predicted by the standard model of particle physics and the fact that there’s—we got a glimpse of it, it looks like it may very well be there—is a real victory for that model of science where you test, you put forward conceptual models of the way the world or the universe works and test those models against the observations and see the extent to which they can predict new observations and when they do, it gives you increased confidence in the models. “It’s no different in the case of climate change. The models are simply at some level a formulation of our conceptual understanding and when someone says they don't like models then I’m wondering what alternative they have in mind. “How do they formalize their conceptual understanding? Through back-of-the-envelope, poorly conceived thought experiments? It's somewhat bewildering when I hear something like that from a premier scientist, and I think it belies a misunderstanding of the way models are used. In climate science, for example, where we don't need an elaborate climate model to understand the basic physics and chemistry of greenhouse gases, so at some level the fact that increased CO2 warms the planet is a consequence of very basic physics and chemistry. “The details, how much warming you get, depend on things like feedbacks. And you can’t incorporate feedbacks through a back of the envelope approach. You actually have to critically think about the interactions that take place in this very complex system. And those feedbacks ultimately determine the extent to which that initial warming will be amplified, but they don’t even change the fact that you elevate greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and you’ll get a warming of the surface. That’s basic physics and chemistry and people who claim that they don’t believe that, they don’t believe we’re warming the planet through increasing CO2 levels because of climate models, they don’t understand the fact that you don’t need a climate model to come to that conclusion. It's basic physics and chemistry. “The climate models come in because we wanna know how that's modified by feedback. What are the important feedbacks? How will atmospheric circulation patterns change? And again, does Freeman Dyson, assuming he is willing to get on an airplane even though models have been used to test the performance of the airplane, assuming he does and he knows he’s going somewhere where they’ve predicted, where weather models have predicted rainfall for the next seven days, does he not pack his umbrella because he doesn’t believe the models? It's just in that case the worst that will happen is somebody gets wet when they wouldn’t otherwise have. In this case, the worst that can happen is that we ruin the planet.” —David Biell Makes you wonder why to spite such easily obtained search results the science ignorati continue to insists the models are wrong. It is like they have no interests in the science but protecting some int 2. pterostyrax 12:02 PM 1/10/12Freeman Dyson has it right and Michael Mann has it wrong. Here are just a few of the areas in which the GCMs and conclusions drawn from them are unequivocally wrong. 1. GCMs do not solve the original partial differential equations describing all of the mechanisms included in the models. They solve modified equations that are approximations of the originals, which, by definition, introduce errors in the solution. 2. GCMs require numerical rather than exact solutions of the equations. The numerical solutions introduce additional errors in reproducing the modified equations particularly with regards to the temporal/spatial scales used in the solution and the type of grid chosen to define the physical space modeled. 3. Once the forms of the modified equations and the temporal and spatial scales have been chosen, then one must setup initial and boundary conditions that define and then drive the simulations. Huge errors are introduced in the simulations as a result of uncertainties in defining these boundary conditions for all the myriad processes necessary in GCMs. Give the same model to 10 different modelers, and you will have 10 different results depending upon how the boundary conditions are specified. 4. The myriad processes involving physical, chemical, and biological interactions have their own problems including important processes left out and incomplete mathematical descriptions of the ones included with numerous simplifying assumptions, but the greatest problem is how the processes are parameterized and the specification of these parameters. Give the same model to 10 different modelers, and you will have 10 different results depending upon how the parameters are specified. 5. Even if all the previously described problems could be eliminated, GCMs, or any model for that matter, cannot predict the future. They can only say what would have happened given the proscribed initial and boundary conditions. No one can know the boundary conditions for the future. Admittedly, the previous is a very brief discussion of why Dyson is right and Mann is wrong. I could easily write a long paper or even a book on the subject, but I will exit this comment with the following statement - If you can give the same model to 10 different modelers and obtain 10 different results, then that aint science, or at least what I have always believed to be science. Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this 3. pterostyrax in reply to Trent1492 12:13 PM 1/10/12Riddle me this. Why are four different model output runs included when comparing to "observed" temperatures? Additionally, on another graph in the IPCC report, why are the results of 14 (I believe this number is correct) different GCMs averaged and then included in the comparison of computed versus observed temperatures? I am fairly certain I know why. Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this 4. Trent1492 12:32 PM 1/10/12pterostyrax Says: Riddle me this. Why are four different model output runs included when comparing to "observed" temperatures? Trent Says: Each models makes different assumptions about the future input of CO2. If you had even a smidgen of knowledge you would have know that one, Riddler. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-2.html Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this 5. Trent1492 12:35 PM 1/10/12Anyone else wondering why Pterostyrax will not address the fact of the models and temperature match that is found in the peer reviewed literature? It is like he is in denial of reality. Funny that. Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this 6. pterostyrax in reply to Trent1492 12:56 PM 1/10/12This graph is a comparison to computed versus OBSERVED temperatures. Four different carbon inputs for FUTURE inputs of carbon are irrelevant. I do not mind the ad hominem, but at least get it right when you conduct one. Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this 7. Trent1492 01:13 PM 1/10/12Pterostyrax Says: This graph is a comparison to computed versus OBSERVED temperatures. Four different carbon inputs for FUTURE inputs of carbon are irrelevant. Shorter Pterostryax: Please ignore the graph with observed temperatures and the models that reproduce them. Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this 8. just1observer 01:41 PM 1/10/12Michael Mann speaks the truth. I believe that for Freeman Dyson to malign the accuracy of the current versions of weather models is a false issue and a cheep shot at weather scientists in general. Moreover, arguing over the accuracy of various weather models misses the main issues about the science of weather prediction and global warming. There are a few things that we know from weather scientists with a high degree of confidence: (1) the earth is indeed warming; (2) human activity is indeed making a meaningful contribution to that global warming; (3) global warming is changing and will continue to change global weather patterns through a very complex set of interactions that we are only just beginning to identify, better yet fully understand, and (4)weather scientists who construct these models to try to identify and understand these interactions and then predict the consequences to test and improve their models are very much on the right track. These scientific efforts should be supported by the larger scientific community as well as the public. It is an imperative for this science to advance. If we were to stop or slow the creation, evolution, continuous testing, and improvement of these models we would be doing the world a great disservice. Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this 9. Trent1492 01:46 PM 1/10/12I think at least one note of clarification needs to be put here. It is blatantly obvious that Pterostyrax is engaging in obfuscation. Climate science has been making predictions and successful observations of those predictions since 1896. When Svante Arrhenius constructed a model of the atmosphere using nothing more than pencil and paper he made several key predictions: 1. Nights would warm faster days. 2. Winters would warm faster than Summers. 3. The Arctic would warm faster than anywhere else. All of these predictions have been observed in the 20th and 21st century. Pterostyrax and friends want the public to not know of these and other successful predictions because their interests lay in the public being confused and ignorant. That is why they never ever address them. Ever. Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this 10. pterostyrax in reply to just1observer 02:21 PM 1/10/12"If we were to stop or slow the creation, evolution, continuous testing, and improvement of these models we would be doing the world a great disservice." No argument here. My and Dyson's argument is that the models are currently not ready for prime time for the reasons I elucidated among many more that could be brought to bear on the efficacy of GCMs. Because one can throw a host of equations at the real world does not mean that the set of the previous has any bearing on the latter. Point in question - Long Term Capital's economic numerical models. However, the need to improve the modeling efforts does not change the fact that the current status of GCMs in providing some semblance of the real world and conclusions drawn therefrom is greatly lacking any firm basis regarding sound science.  Logged DougMacG Power User Posts: 5953  « Reply #632 on: February 21, 2012, 11:14:59 AM » "I am not for or against "climate change" resulting from human behavior. I am simply confused." - CCP If it turns out that humans are irreparably harming the planet right now and that we have a short time to act, the phony, agenda driven 'scientists' like Michael Mann set beck the quest for that truth by about 20 years in my estimation with their dishonesty, deceit and monopolistic practices to take over and dominate the profession. "...the worst that can happen is that we ruin the planet" ... which is of course justification for all ends and all means. Strangely coincident is that the solution for warming would be bigger and stronger governments, if not world government, and smaller and smaller personal and economic liberties - the same environmental agenda pushed before the discovery of warming. Who knew? Also strange is that none of the scientists or big advocates have quit heating or air conditioning their work spaces, or shrunk their work spaces, or moved into their work spaces, or ended the ritual of all expenses paid global travels to meet with each other regularly - while suggesting all of that is necessary for everyone else to do so. Meanwhile the mercury-based light bulb mandate is now in effect on you, from people who know better than you, unless you can get a waiver from people more powerful than you.  Logged Crafty_Dog Administrator Power User Posts: 31257  « Reply #633 on: February 21, 2012, 11:16:40 AM » As best as I can tell, this directly addresses Chuck's concerns: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?mod=opinion_newsreel Editor's Note: The authors of the following letter, listed below, are also the signatories of "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," an op-ed that appeared in the Journal on January 27. This letter responds to criticisms of the op-ed made by Kevin Trenberth and 37 others in a letter published Feb. 1, and by Robert Byer of the American Physical Society in a letter published Feb. 6. The interest generated by our Wall Street Journal op-ed of Jan. 27, "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," is gratifying but so extensive that we will limit our response to the letter to the editor the Journal published on Feb. 1, 2012 by Kevin Trenberth and 37 other signatories, and to the Feb. 6 letter by Robert Byer, President of the American Physical Society. (We, of course, thank the writers of supportive letters.) We agree with Mr. Trenberth et al. that expertise is important in medical care, as it is in any matter of importance to humans or our environment. Consider then that by eliminating fossil fuels, the recipient of medical care (all of us) is being asked to submit to what amounts to an economic heart transplant. According to most patient bills of rights, the patient has a strong say in the treatment decision. Natural questions from the patient are whether a heart transplant is really needed, and how successful the diagnostic team has been in the past. In this respect, an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is "falsified" and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007. These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant. .Enlarge Image Close..From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate. The Trenberth letter tells us that "computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean." The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of "missing heat" hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean? Given this dubious track record of prediction, it is entirely reasonable to ask for a second opinion. We have offered ours. With apologies for any immodesty, we all have enjoyed distinguished careers in climate science or in key science and engineering disciplines (such as physics, aeronautics, geology, biology, forecasting) on which climate science is based. Trenberth et al. tell us that the managements of major national academies of science have said that "the science is clear, the world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible." Apparently every generation of humanity needs to relearn that Mother Nature tells us what the science is, not authoritarian academy bureaucrats or computer models. One reason to be on guard, as we explained in our original op-ed, is that motives other than objective science are at work in much of the scientific establishment. All of us are members of major academies and scientific societies, but we urge Journal readers not to depend on pompous academy pronouncements—on what we say—but to follow the motto of the Royal Society of Great Britain, one of the oldest learned societies in the world: nullius in verba—take nobody's word for it. As we said in our op-ed, everyone should look at certain stubborn facts that don't fit the theory espoused in the Trenberth letter, for example—the graph of surface temperature above, and similar data for the temperature of the lower atmosphere and the upper oceans. What are we to make of the letter's claim: "Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record." We don't see any warming trend after the year 2000 in the graph. It is true that the years 2000-2010 were perhaps 0.2 C warmer than the preceding 10 years. But the record indicates that long before CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere began to increase, the earth began to warm in fits and starts at the end of the Little Ice Age—hundreds of years ago. This long term-trend is quite likely to produce several warm years in a row. The question is how much of the warming comes from CO2 and how much is due to other, both natural and anthropogenic, factors? There have been many times in the past when there were warmer decades. It may have been warmer in medieval times, when the Vikings settled Greenland, and when wine was exported from England. Many proxy indicators show that the Medieval Warming was global in extent. And there were even warmer periods a few thousand years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum. The fact is that there are very powerful influences on the earth's climate that have nothing to do with human-generated CO2. The graph strongly suggests that the IPCC has greatly underestimated the natural sources of warming (and cooling) and has greatly exaggerated the warming from CO2. The Trenberth letter states: "Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused." However, the claim of 97% support is deceptive. The surveys contained trivial polling questions that even we would agree with. Thus, these surveys find that large majorities agree that temperatures have increased since 1800 and that human activities have some impact. But what is being disputed is the size and nature of the human contribution to global warming. To claim, as the Trenberth letter apparently does, that disputing this constitutes "extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert" is peculiar indeed. One might infer from the Trenberth letter that scientific facts are determined by majority vote. Some postmodern philosophers have made such claims. But scientific facts come from observations, experiments and careful analysis, not from the near-unanimous vote of some group of people. The continued efforts of the climate establishment to eliminate "extreme views" can acquire a seriously threatening nature when efforts are directed at silencing scientific opposition. In our op-ed we mentioned the campaign circa 2003 to have Dr. Chris de Freitas removed not only from his position as editor of the journal Climate Research, but from his university job as well. Much of that campaign is documented in Climategate emails, where one of the signatories of the Trenberth et al. letter writes: "I believe that a boycott against publishing, reviewing for, or even citing articles from Climate Research [then edited by Dr. de Freitas] is certainly warranted, but perhaps the minimum action that should be taken." Or consider the resignation last year of Wolfgang Wagner, editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. In a fulsome resignation editorial eerily reminiscent of past recantations by political and religious heretics, Mr. Wagner confessed to his "sin" of publishing a properly peer-reviewed paper by University of Alabama scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell containing the finding that IPCC models exaggerate the warming caused by increasing CO2. Enlarge Image CloseGetty Images/Ikon Images .The Trenberth letter tells us that decarbonization of the world's economy would "drive decades of economic growth." This is not a scientific statement nor is there evidence it is true. A premature global-scale transition from hydrocarbon fuels would require massive government intervention to support the deployment of more expensive energy technology. If there were economic advantages to investing in technology that depends on taxpayer support, companies like Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Solar Millenium, SpectraWatt, Solyndra, Ener1 and the Renewable Energy Development Corporation would be prospering instead of filing for bankruptcy in only the past few months. The European experience with green technologies has also been discouraging. A study found that every new "green job" in Spain destroyed more than two existing jobs and diverted capital that would have created new jobs elsewhere in the economy. More recently, European governments have been cutting subsidies for expensive CO2-emissionless energy technologies, not what one would expect if such subsidies were stimulating otherwise languid economies. And as we pointed out in our op-ed, it is unlikely that there will be any environmental benefit from the reduced CO2 emissions associated with green technologies, which are based on the demonization of CO2. Turning to the letter of the president of the American Physical Society (APS), Robert Byer, we read, "The statement [on climate] does not declare, as the signatories of the letter [our op-ed] suggest, that the human contribution to climate change is incontrovertible." This seems to suggest that APS does not in fact consider the science on this key question to be settled. Yet here is the critical paragraph from the statement that caused the resignation of Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever and many other long-time members of the APS: "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." No reasonable person can read this and avoid the conclusion that APS is declaring the human impact "incontrovertible." Otherwise there would be no logical link from "global warming" to the shrill call for mitigation. The APS response to the concerns of its membership was better than that of any other scientific society, but it was not democratic. The management of APS took months to review the statement quoted above, and it eventually declared that not a word needed to be changed, though some 750 words were added to try to explain what the original 157 words really meant. APS members were permitted to send in comments but the comments were never made public. In spite of the obstinacy of some in APS management, APS members of good will are supporting the establishment of a politics-free, climate physics study group within the Society. If successful, it will facilitate much needed discussion, debate, and independent research in the physics of climate. In summary, science progresses by testing predictions against real world data obtained from direct observations and rigorous experiments. The stakes in the global-warming debate are much too high to ignore this observational evidence and declare the science settled. Though there are many more scientists who are extremely well qualified and have reached the same conclusions we have, we stress again that science is not a democratic exercise and our conclusions must be based on observational evidence. The computer-model predictions of alarming global warming have seriously exaggerated the warming by CO2 and have underestimated other causes. Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture, and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost. Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antoninio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.  Logged DougMacG Power User Posts: 5953  « Reply #634 on: April 16, 2012, 12:21:24 AM » Glaciers are growing in the Karakoram range, home to K2 (Increased ice was caused by warming) Scientists discover glaciers in Asian mountain range are actually getting BIGGER By Ian Garland UK Daily Mail PUBLISHED: 15:13 EST, 15 April 2012 | UPDATED: 15:20 EST, 15 April 2012 Photos taken by a French satellite show glaciers in a mountain range west of the Himalayas have grown during the last decade. The growing glaciers were found in the Karakoram range, which spans the borders between Pakistan, India and China and is home to the world's second highest peak, K2. - More at the link...  Logged DougMacG Power User Posts: 5953  « Reply #635 on: April 16, 2012, 12:30:48 AM » (Caused by an early versions of the Ford F150 and Chevy Suburban.) Severe global warming 55million years ago 'triggered by changes in Earth's orbit' By Daily Mail Reporter PUBLISHED: 06:14 EST, 5 April 2012 | UPDATED: 12:57 EST, 5 April 2012 Changes in the Earth’s orbit 55million years ago caused the planet to warm up by 5C, according to new research. A study by climate scientist Rob DeConto of the University of Massachusetts Amherst and colleagues at the University of Sheffield found that orbital changes triggered the melting of vast areas of permafrost at the poles, which released greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2125533/Global-warming-55m-years-ago-triggered-changes-Earths-orbit.html#ixzz1sB6M8tMy --------------- Did warming primarily cause the release of CO2 or is that backward? - Doug  Logged Crafty_Dog Administrator Power User Posts: 31257  « Reply #636 on: May 03, 2012, 01:13:35 AM » http://fakegate.org/ Buzwardo, are you out there?  Logged DougMacG Power User Posts: 5953  « Reply #637 on: May 14, 2012, 11:33:20 AM » Last week I saw the IMAX production of "To The Arctic" with beautiful photography, music by Paul McCartney and narrated by Meryl Streep to a script of deceptive half truths of environmental agendaisms that completely destroyed the peaceful serenity of what they were showing. The focus they chose was the plight of the polar bear whose populations, never mentioned, have dramatically increased over the last 30 and 50 years. Every never-ending worst on record claim was referring to the last 30 years while implying billions of years. On the other side of the coin is another acclaimed scientist, German Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls, who has come out vocally against the eroding myth of manmade climate disaster. This interview is from a Swiss magazine, with an English translation below well worth reading. Hghlights: The Belief That CO2 Can Regulate Climate Is “Sheer Absurdity” "The entire CO2-debate is nonsense. Even if CO2 were doubled, the temperature would rise only 1°C." "Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it." http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-cache/dafuer-schaeme-ich-mich-heute/ http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/09/the-belief-that-co2-can-regulate-climate-is-sheer-absurdity-says-prominent-german-meteorologist/ http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/the-belief-that-co2-can-regulate-climate-is-sheer-absurdity.php factum (Swiss science publication): You’ve been criticising the theory of man-made global warming for years. How did you become skeptical? Puls: Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it. The CO2-climate hysteria in Germany is propagated by people who are in it for lots of money, attention and power. factum: Is there really climate change? Puls: Climate change is normal. There have always been phases of climate warming, many that even far exceeded the extent we see today. But there hasn’t been any warming since 1998. In fact the IPCC suppliers of data even show a slight cooling. factum: The IPCC is projecting 0.2°C warming per decade, i.e. 2 to 4°C by the year 2100. What’s your view? Puls: These are speculative model projections, so-called scenarios – and not prognoses. Because of climate’s high complexity, reliable prognoses just aren’t possible. Nature does what it wants, and not what the models present as prophesy. The entire CO2-debate is nonsense. Even if CO2 were doubled, the temperature would rise only 1°C. The remainder of the IPCC’s assumed warming is based purely on speculative amplification mechanisms. Even though CO2 has risen, there has been no warming in 13 years. factum: How does sea level rise look? Puls: Sea level rise has slowed down. Moreover, it has dropped a half centimeter over the last 2 years. It’s important to remember that mean sea level is a calculated magnitude, and not a measured one. There are a great number of factors that influence sea level, e.g. tectonic processes, continental shifting, wind currents, passats, volcanoes. Climate change is only one of ten factors. factum: What have we measured at the North Sea? Puls: In the last 400 years, sea level at the North Sea coast has risen about 1.40 meters. That’s about 35 centimeters per century. In the last 100 years, the North Sea has risen only 25 centimeters. factum: Does the sea level rise have anything to do with the melting North Pole? Puls: That’s a misleading conclusion. Even if the entire North Pole melted, there would be no sea level rise because of the principles of buoyancy. factum: Is the melting of the glaciers in the Alps caused by global warming? Puls: There are many factors at play. As one climbs a mountain, the temperature drops about 0.65°C per 100 meters. Over the last 100 years it has gotten about 0.75°C warmer and so the temperature boundary has shifted up about 100 meters. But observations tell us that also ice 1000 meters up and higher has melted. Clearly there are other reasons for this, namely soot and dust. But soot and dust do not only have anthropogenic origins; they are also caused by nature via volcanoes, dust storms and wildfires. Advancing and retreating of glaciers have always taken place throughout the Earth’s history. Glaciology studies clearly show that glaciers over the last 10,0000 years were smaller on average than today. factum: In your view, melting Antarctic sea ice and the fracture of a huge iceberg 3 years ago are nothing to worry about? Puls: To the contrary, the Antarctic ice cap has grown both in area and volume over the last 30 years, and temperature has declined. This 30-year trend is clear to see. The Amundsen Scott Station of the USA shows that temperature has been declining there since 1957. 90% of the Earth’s ice is stored in Antarctica, which is one and half times larger than Europe. factum: Then why do we always read it is getting warmer down there? Puls: Here they are only talking about the West Antarctic peninsula, which is where the big chunk of ice broke off in 2008 – from the Wilkins-Shelf. This area is hardly 1% of the entire area of Antarctica, but it is exposed to Southern Hemisphere west wind drift and some of the strongest storms on the planet. factum: What causes such massive chunks of ice to break off? Puls: There are lots of factors, among them the intensity of the west wind fluctuations. These west winds have intensified over the last 20 years as part of natural ocean and atmospheric cycles, and so it has gotten warmer on the west coast of the Antarctic peninsula. A second factor are the larger waves associated with the stronger storms. The waves are more powerful and so they break off more ice. All these causes are meteorological and physical, and have nothing to do with a climate catastrophe. factum: Then such ice breaks had to have occurred in the past too? Puls: This has been going on for thousands of years, also in the 1970s, back when all the talk was about “global cooling”. Back then there were breaks with ice chunks hundreds of square kilometres in area. People were even discussing the possibilities of towing these huge ice chunks to dry countries like South Africa or Namibia in order to use them as a drinking water supply. factum: What about all the media photos of polar bears losing their ice? Puls: That is one of the worst myths used for generating climate hysteria. Polar bears don’t eat ice, they eat seals. Polar bears go hungry if we shoot their food supply of seals. The polar bear population has increased with moderately rising temperatures, from 5000 50 years ago to 25,000 today. factum: But it is true that unlike Antarctica, the Arctic is melting? Puls: It has been melting for 30 years. That also happened twice already in the last 150 years. The low point was reached in 2007 and the ice has since begun to recover. There have always been phases of Arctic melting. Between 900 and 1300 Greenland was green on the edges and the Vikings settled there. factum: And what do you say about the alleged expanding deserts? Puls: That doesn”t exist. For example the Sahara is shrinking and has lost in the north an area as large as Germany over the last 20 years. The same is true in the South Sahara. The famine that struck Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia was mainly caused by the leasing of large swaths of land to large international corporations so that they could grow crops for biofuels for Europe, and by war. But it is much easier for prosperous Europe to blame the world’s political failures on a fictional climate catastrophe instead. factum: So we don’t need to do anything against climate change? Puls: There’s nothing we can do to stop it. Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob. Many confuse environmental protection with climate protection. it’s impossible to protect the climate, but we can protect the environment and our drinking water. On the debate concerning alternative energies, which is sensible, it is often driven by the irrational climate debate. One has nothing to do with the other.  Logged Crafty_Dog Administrator Power User Posts: 31257  « Reply #638 on: July 11, 2012, 10:06:10 PM » http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/two_millennia_of_global_cooling.html#.T_4oFcEnJ6Q.facebook  Logged DougMacG Power User Posts: 5953  « Reply #639 on: July 16, 2012, 07:55:07 PM » John Hinderaker of Powerline covering for BBG on Pathological Sdcience: A Tornado of Misinformation No matter the season, weather is highly variable. So global warming alarmists never miss an opportunity to turn the latest bad weather into an argument for taxing carbon, or whatever. When tornadoes struck this spring, the alarmists and their minions in the press were quick to blame global warming. Just a few examples: Think Progress: “Poisoned Weather: Global Warming Helped Fuel Killer Tornadoes.” CNN: “That’s climate change we are seeing.” Treehugger.com: “[T]ornado season doesn’t usually begin until April, leading climate scientists to link the warmer weather to earlier (and potentially longer) seasons.” NBC News: “ANNE THOMPSON: Extreme weather blew March 2012 into the record books. It saw almost three times the average number of reported tornadoes. NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says our the unusually warm weather created conditions favorable for twisters. And while there’s no one culprit to blame for the rising thermometer, there is a prime suspect. TOM KARL [NOAA]: Right now, we have a climate on steroids. What we mean by that is green house gases continue to increase in the atmosphere.” And there was even more alarmism about global warming and tornadoes last year. So, what are the facts? If someone is going to argue that atmospheric CO2 is causing an extraordinary number of tornadoes, the prerequisite is an extraordinary number of tornadoes. Unfortunately for the alarmists, there is no evidence that tornadoes are increasing in the U.S. or anywhere else. Paul Homewood at Watts Up With That has the data. This chart shows “strong to violent tornadoes” as classified by NOAA from 1950 to the present. As is immediately obvious, there is no upward trend, although 2011 happened to have a lot of major tornadoes: How about 2012? Is there any evidence of an unusual number of tornadoes this year? No. In fact, 2012 is, so far, a below average year for tornadoes: It would be bad enough if the alarmists merely capitalized on random increases in bad weather phenomena to support their case. But the fact that the alarmists try to blame global warming in years that are actually below average in adverse weather events illustrates why they have no credibility with the American people. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/a-tornado-of-misinformation.php  Logged G M Power User Posts: 12042  « Reply #640 on: September 26, 2012, 11:51:00 AM » Who could have seen this coming? Usually govenment run businesses do so much better. Posted on September 25, 2012 by Steven Hayward in Green Weenie Award Green Weenie of the Week: The Electric Car Very stiff competition for this week’s coveted Power Line Green Weenie Award. Al Gore is even warming up for another shot at another Green Chakra Weenie for his solar-powered mantle. But one contender has risen above the rest of the green slime to claim the prize: the electric car. Who says? At current vehicle and energy prices, the lifetime costs to consumers of an electric vehicle are generally higher than those of a conventional vehicle or traditional hybrid vehicle of similar size and performance, even with the tax credits, which can be as much as7,500 per vehicle. That conclusion takes into account both the higher purchase price of an electric vehicle and the lower fuel costs over the vehicle’s life. For example, an average plug-in hybrid vehicle with a battery capacity of 16 kilowatt-hours would be eligible for the maximum tax credit. However, that vehicle would require a tax credit of more than $12,000 to have roughly the same lifetime costs as a comparable conventional or traditional hybrid vehicle. Assuming that everything else is equal, the larger an electric vehicle’s battery capacity, the greater its cost disadvantage relative to conventional vehicles—and thus the larger the tax credit needed to make it cost-competitive. GM is probably losing money on each Volt it sells (though GM disputes this): Reuters recently reported that GM is losing a bundle on each Volt it sells — despite the little plug-in hybrid’s steep$39,995 base price.

While GM took issue with Reuters’ math, it’s clear that the innovative car isn’t a moneymaker for General Motors. With sales of just a few thousand in the best of months, it’ll be many years before the car manages to repay its development costs, estimated at over $1 billion. Meanwhile, Toyota has announced it is scrapping plans to bring a new all-electric vehicle to the market: “The current capabilities of electric vehicles do not meet society’s needs, whether it may be the distance the cars can run, or the costs, or how it takes a long time to charge,” said, Uchiyamada, who spearheaded Toyota’s development of the Prius hybrid in the 1990s. Make it electric, color it green, and I'm there! Now, if the automakers would offer a model in the shape of a Green Weenie, like the old Oscar Meyer Weinermobile, I might be tempted to buy one!  Logged DougMacG Power User Posts: 5953  « Reply #641 on: September 26, 2012, 12:09:12 PM » I am pro electric car and pro-hybrid - competing in a free market. "tax credits, which can be as much as$7,500 per vehicle"

Whether $20,0000 or 200,000, electric or hybrid, that means every taxpayer and every future taxpayer is paying a part of the transportation cost for rich people. And it didn't save the planet. Who knew.  Logged Body-by-Guinness Power User Posts: 2788  « Reply #642 on: October 15, 2012, 04:01:57 PM » Report: Global warming stopped 16 years ago from Watts Up With That? by Anthony Watts UPDATE: There’s a response from the Met Office here A report in the UK Daily Mail reveals a Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it: By David Rose The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996 The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures. This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years. The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported. This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year. Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased. Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions. Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29E78OR9H h/t to reader “Dino” regarding the significance of the period from 1997, recall that Dr. Ben Santer claimed 17 years was the period needed: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/ They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere. MIT Professor Richard Lindzen said something similar in a WUWT guest post: There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995. Bob Tisdale did a 17 and 30 year trend comparison here Here’s the HADCRUT4 4.1.1. dataset http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/13/report-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/  Logged G M Power User Posts: 12042  « Reply #643 on: October 15, 2012, 04:20:35 PM » Gaia obviously foresaw Obama's election and decided to spare us. So Obama has one promise kept. Lightbringer.  Logged Body-by-Guinness Power User Posts: 2788  « Reply #644 on: October 31, 2012, 08:08:19 PM » Oh my goodness. Several months back National Review Online published a piece excoriating Michael Mann of Hockey Stick statistical manipulation fame. Mann claimed he would sue NRO for the piece, and indeed did so in a DC court recently, claiming, among other things, to be a Nobel laureate. Some called BS on the claim, and the Nobel committee stated Mann in fact was not a winner. As such NRO took a full page ad out in Penn State's student newspaper: Ought to be amusing to see what sort of hyperventilation this inspires in Mann. Might want to set up a wind farm in his office. . . . Whole piece here: http://nationalreviewonline.tumblr.com/post/34722632643/honoring-michael-manns-nobel-prize-to-mark  Logged Body-by-Guinness Power User Posts: 2788  « Reply #645 on: November 28, 2012, 07:32:23 AM » Nice overview of sundry hockey stick foolishness. Doomed Planet “Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.” Vaclav Klaus Blue Planet in Green Shackles Speak loudly and carry a busted hockey stick by Walter Starck November 19, 2012 The average temperature for the Earth, or any region or even any specific place is very difficult to determine with any accuracy. At any given time surface air temperatures around the world range over about 100°C. Even in the same place they can vary by nearly that much seasonally and as much as 30°C or more in a day. Weather stations are relatively few and located very irregularly. Well maintained stations with good records going back a century or more can be counted on one’s fingers. Even then only maximum and minimum temperatures or ones at a few particular times of day are usually available. Maintenance, siting, and surrounding land use also all have influences on the temperatures recorded. The purported 0.7°C of average global warming over the past century is highly uncertain. It is in fact less than the margin of error in our ability to determine the average temperature anywhere, much less globally. What portion of any such warming might be due to due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is even less certain. There are, however, numerous phenomena which are affected by temperature and which can provide good evidence of relative warming or cooling and, in some cases, even actual temperatures. These include growth rings in trees, corals and stalactites, borehole temperature profiles and the isotopic and biologic signatures in core samples from sediments or glaciers. In addition, historical accounts of crops grown, harvest times, freezes, sea ice, river levels, glacial advances or retreats and other such records provide clear indication of warming and cooling. Recent Warming Nothing Unusual The temperature record everywhere shows evidence of warming and cooling in accord with cycles on many different time scales from daily to annual, decadal, centennial, millennial and even longer. Many of these seem to correlate with various cycles of solar activity and the Earth’s own orbital mechanics. The temperature record is also marked by seemingly random events which appear to follow no discernable pattern. Over the past 3000 years there is evidence from hundreds of independent proxy studies, as well as historical records, for a Minoan Warm period around 1000 BC, a Roman Warm Period about 2000 years ago, a Medieval Warm Period (WMP) about 1000 years ago and a Modern Warm Period now developing. In between were markedly colder periods in the Dark Ages and another between the 16th and 19th centuries which is now known as the Little Ice Age (LIA). The warmer periods were times of bountiful crops, increasing population and a general flourishing of human societies. The cold periods were times of droughts, famines, epidemics, wars and population declines. Clearly life has been much better in the times of warmer climate, and there is nothing to indicate that the apparent mild warming of the past century is anything other than a return of this millennial scale warming cycle. Good News Unwelcome to Alarmists This rather good news about a possibly warmer climate has not met with hopeful interest from those who purport to be so concerned about the possibly dangerous effects of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). On the contrary, their reaction has overwhelmingly been a strong rejection of any beneficial possibility. It is apparent that their deepest commitment is to the threat itself and not to any rational assessment of real world probabilities or the broader consequences of any of their proposed remedies. Fabricating a Hockey Stick from Hot Air This blanket rejection of any possibility other than the hypothetical threat of AGW has led to some strange behaviour for people who modestly proclaim themselves to be the world’s top climate scientists. Not only have they ignored and dismissed the hundreds of studies indicating the global existence of a Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, they have set out to fabricate an alternate reality in the form of a graph purporting to represent the global temperature for the past thousand years. It portrays a near straight line wiggling up and down only a fraction of a degree for centuries until it begins an exponential rise gradually starting at the beginning of the 20th century and then shooting steeply up in the latter part of that century. This hockey stick-shaped graph was then heavily promoted as the icon of AGW. It appeared on the cover of the third climate assessment report of the IPCC published in 2003 and was reproduced at various places in the report itself. Among the emails between leading climate researchers released in the Climategate affair were a number which revealed a concerted effort to come up with some means to deny the existence of the MWP. The implement chosen to do this became known as the Hockey Stick Graph. The methodology used to construct the graph involved the use of estimates of temperatures from a very small sample of tree growth rings from the Yamal Peninsula in far northern Siberia and ancient stunted pine trees from near the tree line in the High Sierras of California. This data was then subjected to a statistical treatment later shown by critics to produce a hockey stick form of graph even when random numbers were used as raw input data. To make matters even worse, the same tree ring data also indicated a significant decline in temperature for the 20th century, but this was hidden by burying it in a much larger number of data points from instrument measurements. The resulting study was published in the prestigious scientific journal, Nature in 1998. Remarkably, this very small, highly selected and deceptively manipulated graph was proclaimed to be an accurate representation of global temperatures and the extensive body of contrary evidence was simply ignored. Continuing the Game With a Busted Stick When serious shortcomings of the hockey stick study began to be exposed and questioned the climate alarmists closed ranks and proclaimed their preeminent authority and expertise but refused to engage in any genuine scientific debate with their critics. Instead, they appealed to a supposed consensus of experts, peer review, and personal denigration of any who dared to disagree. All of the name calling, pissing contests over credentials and abstruse statistical manipulations made it difficult for the general public to come to any conclusion. Regardless of various provable errors and conflicting evidence, the alarmists could and did simply ignore it all and claim the HS graph as gospel truth. Then came Climategate. Obvious scams, lies and connivance are something that doesn’t require a computer model or a PhD to recognise. In the Climategate emails discussion of things like things like “…Mike’s Nature trick…,”, manipulations to “…hide the decline”, requests to destroy correspondence, efforts to supress publication of conflicting studies, vilification of critics, and abuse of peer review were matters anyone could see were not ethical. Certainly they were not the kind of behaviour we should expect from high level scientists whose advice we are being asked to accept in policies that could be expected to have major effects on the prosperity of our entire society. The loss of public trust and credibility resulting from Climategate was immense and has been compounded by additional ongoing exposures of misconduct, repeated failures of alarmist predictions and the slow motion economic train wreck of green energy initiatives. Although one might rationally expect that the obvious collapse of alarmist momentum would have them reassessing their approach and perhaps even the validity of their earlier assumptions, it seems that the idea that they may have been wrong in any respect must be be inconceivable to them. Instead, their response to conflicting reality and declining credibility has been only to declare still greater certainty and ratchet up the alarm to an even less believable level of hype. If at First You Don’t Succeed, Repeat the Failure Introduction of the carbon tax in Australia was supposed to lead the world along the path of righteousness toward cheap renewable energy and environmental correctness. Unfortunately for the current government both economic reality and climate itself have not co-operated. The intended good example is becoming one of an obvious foolishness to be avoided and nobody is following. Ongoing exposure of scientific misconduct by alarmist researchers and repeated failure of their predictions haven’t helped either. The alarmist community is in disarray and becoming increasingly shrill in the tone of their pronouncements. The need for strong new scientific evidence to reinforce the shredded remnants of their discredited claims is becoming desperate. CSIRO has tried to help with a series of increasingly dire predictions but having become a heavily bureaucratised and politicised institution they have been careful to cover their backsides with qualifiers and disclaimers which dull the sharp edge of hype, certainty and urgency needed by government. However, through generous grants government has also bought and paid for reliable cadres of university based academics whose funding and even whole careers are now based on research into Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). Although science may aspire to value free objectivity, it is observable fact that when generous funding is provided to study a purported problem, one thing is certain. It will never be found that there really wasn’t one. In early June this year a new research report announced the finding of a distinct hockey stick shaped graph for Australian climate over the past millennium. If correct, this would be of great value in supporting the faltering case for CAGW. As the original HS graph was based entirely on data from the northern hemisphere, finding the same pattern from the Southern Hemisphere would bolster the claim that the recent warming is indeed global and unprecedented. Based on different much more extensive data and free of the inappropriate statistical treatment of the original HS study, this new one would also greatly bolster the tattered credibility of the original study. The new study appeared in Journal of Climate under the title, "Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium". It was authored by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Ailie Gallant, Steven Phipps and David Karoly. In mid-May 2012 it was made available online in preprint form, having been peer reviewed and accepted for print publication in an upcoming issue of the journal. In a number of key aspects what followed has been a rerun of the original HS story. Shortly after the online preprint appeared, the Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre pointed out that a statistical procedure which was stated in the Gergis et al. study to have been applied had not in fact been used. Not coincidentally, it was McIntyre who exposed the statistical shortcomings in the original HS study. Although advanced statistical analysis is widely used in science, very few researchers have a thorough mathematical understanding of what they are doing in this regard. Most are simply following a recipe. However, there is little risk of having to justify the validity of anything as their peers are not statisticians either. McIntyre has an unfair advantage in this. He is a genuine expert in statistics critiquing the work of researchers who are really not very skilled in his discipline. What ensued in subsequent critical discussion on the Internet and in emails between the authors, their colleagues and the journal editors was a litany of shifting denial, obfuscation, excuses, trivialisation and denigration that could have been borrowed from the original HS script. Without going into the tedious and tawdry details (readily available on the net), the key points of the story are that in response to McIntyre’s finding of the statistical problem the authors announced they had already discovered it themselves the day before McIntyre pointed it out, and that it was really just an oversight in the data processing routine which could quickly be corrected and would have no effect on the overall findings of the study. The journal editors accepted this and gave the authors a deadline with sufficient time to rerun the data routine and make any necessary corrections to the MS. After much speculation in the blogosphere and varying opinion among the authors and their supporters about what to do and how it might affect the outcome, the deadline passed without a corrected MS being received by the journal. The editors then asked for the study to be withdrawn. Such a request is the scientific equivalent of hara-kiri, a dishonour so great that the only honourable atonement is what amounts to ritual scientific suicide. If, as publically maintained, all that was involved was a data processing error which could easily be corrected and would have no important effect on the outcome, surely the correction would have been made. However, email correspondence between the authors (which became available through an FOI request) revealed a concern that if properly applied the omitted data processing routine would not result in the desired HS graph or, if it did so, would at best yield only highly uncertain results. The direct cost of this fiasco to taxpayers is reported to have totalled some$950,000 in research grants from 2009 to 2012. To further this failed work the latest Australian Research Council grants announcement also lists another \$350,000 in funding to the lead author approved for 2013 – 2015.  The climate gravy train can provide a sumptuous ride for those whose work shows promise of producing what the government wants.

Climatology - Science or Ideology?

Climatology is no longer recognisable as a science but has morphed into a fundamentalist ideology of a millenarian nature. Science only serves it to enhance claims of authority and certainty. Scientific ethics and evidence are employed selectively in accord with the noble cause of saving the planet from the corruptions of humanity and capitalism. Any conflicting reason or evidence is never sufficient for doubt but is only a test of faith to be overcome. Any opposing argument is not simply incorrect but driven by wilful evil, in league with big business if not Satan himself.

For third rate academics CAGW has much to offer. One doesn’t need to be particularly capable to speculate about some dire consequence of warming, receive widespread publicity and be treated as an important expert. Unlike in real science, no colleagues will dispute them and the few sceptics willing to question anything will generally be ignored and denigrated by all their peers. The news media will describe them as experts and provide the public attention they know they deserve but somehow had never been recognised by anyone else until they climbed onto the climate bandwagon. Grants then flow and jetting off to attend important conferences in attractive places with all expenses paid provides frequent welcome breaks from the tedium of academia. Perhaps best of all, is a delicious feeling of importance and moral superiority over all of the high achievers striving so hard to discover something of consequence about the real world.  The only personal cost is to one’s own scientific integrity and that’s not worth much if one is just another unrecognised minor league academic no one had ever heard of before they joined into the climate alarm. In any case, saving the planet is the noblest of all causes and absolves any tinge of guilt in such regard.

Uncertainty and a Duty of Care

Recently an Italian court sentenced several scientists to jail terms in connection with a failed prediction regarding an earthquake. The court decision provoked widespread condemnation from the global scientific community because earthquakes are beyond the ability of current science to predict. However, the legal basis of their culpability was not in failing to predict the quake but in falsely asserting certainty in their own prediction. In this instance the scientists assured the local population that there was little risk of a dangerous event and that they should all go home, have a nice bottle of wine and not worry. A strong quake took place and several hundred people were killed.

The situation was perhaps exacerbated by a conflicting opinion from an independent researcher who had detected a sharp rise in radon gas in the air and felt this was evidence of an impending temblor. The government experts disagreed and assured everyone they were the experts and they were confident there was little or no risk.

If scientists are going to claim high levels of expert authority they have a duty of care to make clear the level of uncertainty in their predictions. This is especially so where there are potentially major detrimental consequences from following their advice should it prove to be incorrect. The essential difference between belief and science, or between alarmists and sceptics, is that the former assert certainty while the latter admit room for doubt. False claims of certainty and expertise by alarmist researchers have been a major obstacle to any rational public debate of the matter.

Fantasies vs. Reality

In the meantime, while we have been indulging the fantasies of activists and academics vying for our attention on the threat of CAGW, the economies of the developed world have come to teeter on the brink of financial chaos.

Democracies everywhere have voted for more government and more benefits than their productive sectors can support. Deficits are now chronic and blowing out while productive activity struggles under the burden of ever more government imposed restrictions and demands. The climate-alarmist push to penalise and restrict the use of fossil fuels and force the premature adoption of expensive, inadequate, unreliable renewable energy is a dagger to the very heart of our society at a time of great vulnerability. Ironically, if the alarmist aim is achieved they themselves, the urban non-producers, will be among the first to become truly unsustainable. The next few years look to become a decisive reality test.

In news just in (and curiously ignored in the mainstream Western media) it is reported that for the first time since it began The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not invited to attend an upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference. Could it be that in a global financial crisis nations have finally come to realise that climate hysterics are more of a problem than a solution?

 Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User

Posts: 2788

 « Reply #646 on: December 05, 2012, 08:12:52 AM »

At climate talks in Qatar (something of an oxymoron to begin with) participants are duped into wearing a "carbon sequestration" mask. Critical thinking does not seem to be something the participants caught here are endowed with: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/04/doha-delegates-pwned/
 Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User

Posts: 2788

 « Reply #647 on: December 13, 2012, 09:26:51 PM »

Hmm, a little sunlight goes a long way it appears:

IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing
Posted on December 13, 2012 by Guest Blogger
UPDATE1: Andrew Revkin at the NYT weighs in, an semi endorses the leak, see update below – Anthony

UPDATE2: Alternate links have been sent to me, should go faster now.  – Anthony

Full AR5 draft leaked here, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing

(Alec Rawls) I participated in “expert review” of the Second Order Draft of AR5 (the next IPCC report), Working Group 1 (“The Scientific Basis”), and am now making the full draft available to the public. I believe that the leaking of this draft is entirely legal, that the taxpayer funded report report is properly in the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act, and that making it available to the public is in any case protected by established legal and ethical standards, but web hosting companies are not in the business of making such determinations so interested readers are encouraged to please download copies of the report for further dissemination in case this content is removed as a possible terms-of-service violation. My reasons for leaking the report are explained below. Here are the chapters:

Fromhttp://www.stopgreensuicide.com/

Summary for Policymakers
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean
Chapter 4: Observations: Cryosphere
Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives
Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols
Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
Chapter 8 Supplement
Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models
Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional
Chapter 11: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility
Chapter 13: Sea Level Change
Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
Chapter 14 Supplement
Technical Summary

Why leak the draft report?

By Alec Rawls (email) [writing at http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/ ]

General principles

The ethics of leaking tax-payer funded documents requires weighing the “public’s right to know” against any harm to the public interest that may result. The press often leaks even in the face of extreme such harm, as when the New York Times published details of how the Bush administration was tracking terrorist financing with the help of the private sector Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), causing this very successful anti-terror program to immediately collapse.

That was a bad leak, doing great harm to expose something that nobody needed to know about. With the UN’s IPCC reports the calculus is reversed. UN “climate chief” Christina Figueres explains what is at stake for the public:

… we are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science.

So may we please see this “science” on the basis of which our existing energy infrastructure is to be ripped out in favor of non-existent “green” energy? The only reason for secrecy in the first place is to enhance the UN’s political control over a scientific story line that is aimed explicitly at policy makers. Thus the drafts ought to fall within the reach of the Freedom of Information Act.

The Obama administration implicitly acknowledged this when it tried to evade FOIA by setting up private “backdoor channels” for communications with the IPCC. If NCAR’s Gerald Meehl (a lead author of AR5′s chapter on near-term climate change), has working copies of the draft report (and he’s only one of dozens of U.S. government researchers who would), then by law the draft report (now finished) should be available to the public.

The IPCC’s official reason for wanting secrecy (as they explained it to Steve McIntyre in  January 2012) is so that criticisms of the drafts are not spread out across the internet but get funneled through the UN’s comment process. If there is any merit to that rationale it is now moot. The comment period ended November 30th so the comment process can no longer be affected by publication.

As for my personal confidentiality agreement with the IPCC, I regard that as vitiated by the systematic dishonesty of the report (“omitted variable fraud” as I called it in my FOD comments). This is a general principle of journalistic confidentiality: bad faith on one side breaks the agreement on the other. They can’t ask reviewers to become complicit in their dishonesty by remaining silent about it.

Then there is the specific content of the Second Order Draft where the addition of one single sentence demands the release of the whole. That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole.

Lead story from the Second Order Draft: strong evidence for solar forcing beyond TSI now acknowledged by IPCC

Compared to the First Order Draft, the SOD now adds the following sentence, indicated in bold (page 7-43, lines 1-5, emphasis added):

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don’t know what the mechanism is. This directly undercuts the main premise of the report, as stated in Chapter 8 (page 8-4, lines 54-57):

There is very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular, over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite observations of the TSI and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero (–0.04 W m–2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of ~1.0 ± 0.3 W m–2.

The Chapter 8 authors (a different group than the Chapter 7 authors) are explicit here that their claim about natural forcing being small compared to anthropogenic forcing is based on an analysis in which the only solar forcing that is taken into account is TSI. This can be verified from the radiative forcing table on page 8-39 where the only solar variable included in the IPCC’s computer models is seen to be “solar irradiance.”

This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing.

The Chapter 8 premise that natural forcing is relatively small leads directly to the main conclusion of the entire report, stated in the first sentence of the Executive Summary (the very first sentence of the entire report): that advances since AR4 “further strengthen the basis for human activities being the primary driver in climate change” (p.1-2, lines 3-5). This headline conclusion is a direct descendant of the assumption that the only solar forcing is TSI, a claim that their own report no longer accepts.

The report still barely hints at the mountain of evidence for enhanced solar forcing, or the magnitude of the evidenced effect. Dozens of studies (section two here) have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices, suggesting that solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change, very little of which could be explained by the very slight variation in TSI. At least the Chapter 7 team is now being explicit about what this evidence means: that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work.

My full submitted comments (which I will post later) elaborate several important points. For instance, note that the Chapter 8 premise (page 8-4, lines 54-57) assumes that it is the change in the level of forcing since 1980, not the level of forcing, that would be causing warming. Solar activity was at historically high levels at least through the end of solar cycle 22 (1996), yet the IPCC is assuming that because this high level of solar forcing was roughly constant from 1950 until it fell off during solar cycle 23 it could not have caused post-1980 warming. In effect they are claiming that you can’t heat a pot of water by turning the burner to maximum and leaving it there, that you have to keep turning the flame up to get continued warming, an un-scientific absurdity that I have been writing about for several years (most recently in my post about Isaac Held’s bogus 2-box model of ocean equilibration).

The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.

President Obama is already pushing a carbon tax premised on the fear that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. Last week his people were at the UN’s climate meeting in Doha pretending that Hurricane Sandy was caused by human increments to CO2 as UN insiders assured the public that the next IPCC report will “scare the wits out of everyone” with its ramped-up predictions of human-caused global warming to come, but this is not where the evidence points, not if climate change is in any substantial measure driven by the sun, which has now gone quiet and is exerting what influence it has in the cooling direction.

The acknowledgement of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing should upend the IPCC’s entire agenda. The easiest way for the UN to handle this disruptive admission would be to remove it from their final draft, which is another reason to make the draft report public now. The devastating admission needs to be known so that the IPCC can’t quietly take it back.

Will some press organization please host the leaked report?

Most of us have to worry about staying within cautiously written and cautiously applied terms-of-service agreements. That’s why I created this new website. If it gets taken down nothing else gets taken with it. Media companies don’t have this problem. They have their own servers and publishing things like the draft IPCC report is supposed to be their bailiwick.

If the press has First Amendment protection for the publication of leaked materials even when substantial national security interests are at stake (the Supreme Court precedent set in the Pentagon Papers case), then it can certainly republish a leaked draft of a climate science report where there is no public interest in secrecy. The leaker could be at risk (the case against Pentagon leaker Daniel Ellsberg was thrown out for government misconduct, not because his activity was found to be protected) but the press is safe, and their services would be appreciated.

United States taxpayers have funded climate science to the tune of well over 80 billion dollars, all channeled through the funding bureaucracy established by Vice President Albert “the end is nigh” Gore when he served as President Clinton’s “climate czar.”  That Gore-built bureaucracy is still to this day striving to insure that not a penny of all those taxpayer billions ever goes to any researcher who is not committed to the premature conclusion that human contributions to atmospheric CO2 are causing dangerous global warming (despite the lack of any statistically significant warming for more than 15 years).

Acolytes of this bought “consensus” want to see what new propaganda their tax dollars have wrought and so do the skeptics. It’s unanimous, and an already twice-vetted draft is sitting now in thousands of government offices around the world. Time to fork it over to the people.

=============================================================

UPDATE1: Andrew Revkin writes in a story at the NYT Dot Earth today:

It’s important, before anyone attacks Rawls for posting the drafts (this is distinct from his views on their contents), to consider that panel report drafts at various stages of preparation have been leaked in the past by people with entirely different points of view.

That was the case in 2000, when I was leaked a final draft of the summary for policy makers of the second science report from the panel ahead of that year’s round of climate treaty negotiations. As I explained in the resulting news story, “A copy of the summary was obtained by The New York Times from someone who was eager to have the findings disseminated before the meetings in The Hague.”

Here’s a question I sent tonight to a variety of analysts of the panel’s workings over the years:

The leaker, Alec Rawls, clearly has a spin. But I’ve long thought that I.P.C.C. was in a weird losing game in trying to boost credibility through more semi-open review while trying to maintain confidentiality at same time. I’m sympathetic to the idea of having more of the I.P.C.C. process being fully open (a layered Public Library of Science-style approach to review can preserve the sanity of authors) in this age of enforced transparency (WikiLeaks being the most famous example).

I’ll post answers as they come in.

Full story at DotEarth

==============================================================

Summary for Policymakers
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425211/SummaryForPolicymakers_WG1AR5-SPM_FOD_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 1: Introduction
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425214/Ch1-Introduction_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch01_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436270/Ch2_Obs-atmosur_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch02_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436276/Ch3_Obs-oceans_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch03_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 4: Observations: Cryosphere
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436279/Ch4_obs-cryo_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch04_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436282/Ch5_Paleo_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch05_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436285/Ch6_Carbonbio_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch06_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436286/Ch7_Clouds-aerosols_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch07_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing

Chapter 8 Supplement
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436312/Ch8_supplement_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch08_SM_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436298/Ch9_models_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch09_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional

Chapter 11: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436303/Ch11_near-term_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch11_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425220/Ch12_long-term_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch12_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 13: Sea Level Change
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425221/Ch13_sea-level_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch13_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425222/Ch14_future-regional_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch14_All_Final.pdf.html

Chapter 14 Supplement
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363436309/Ch14_supplement_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch14_SM_Final.pdf.html

Technical Summary
http://www.peejeshare.com/files/363425223/TechnicalSummary_WG1AR5-TS_FOD_All_Final.pdf.html

 Logged
Crafty_Dog
Power User

Posts: 31257

 « Reply #648 on: December 14, 2012, 09:02:22 AM »

BBG:

As usual, you bring a serious level to this subject with your greatly appreciated posts.  I THINK I understand what he is saying, but would you be so kind as to write a summary in layman's English?

TIA,
Marc
 Logged
DougMacG
Power User

Posts: 5953

 « Reply #649 on: December 14, 2012, 11:28:01 AM »

BBG:
As usual, you bring a serious level to this subject with your greatly appreciated posts.  I THINK I understand what he is saying, but would you be so kind as to write a summary in layman's English?
TIA,
Marc

Yes great find and post by BBG.  I too am looking forward to knowing the details and learning BBG's take.  Enhanced solar forcing means that the group that backed Al Gore's movie and shared his award is now giving some blame or credit to the sun for warming the earth.  Solar fluctuations are presumably cyclical while man made greenhouse gas emissions are partly cumulative, so the difference could be the survival of the planet.

The other big deal is that leaking the draft makes it harder to scrub the data and conclusions before the final report.

I wonder where people could have learned sooner that the sun might be part of the cause:
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1118.msg10019#msg10019
Reports of warming on Jupiter, Pluto and Mars, Venus and Triton, the largest moon of Neptune:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html  - Jupiter
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html  - Pluto
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html  - Mars
"Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says"
 Logged
 Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 16