Global Warming/Climate Change 2

[STEVE G]

I am far from being a fan of corporations, least of all oil companies,....

This, from the 'skeptic' camp, is worth a read... http://objectivistindividualist.blogspo ... lobal.html

'The case for the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is so poor, that it is clear that the real reason so many support this false hypothesis does not lie in the science.'

That article is by Charles R. Anderson, a member of the Cato institute, formerly the Charles Koch Foundation founded by oil industry billionaire Charles Koch who happens to have a $25 billion stake in the oil refining industry.

[MrPlum]

That article is by Charles R. Anderson, a member of the Cato institute, formerly the Charles Koch Foundation founded by oil industry billionaire Charles Koch who happens to have a $25 billion stake in the oil refining industry.

Yes, I know. That's why I said the author was a skeptic. We are all biased. The question is, are the many points he makes valid from a scientific, political and financial viewpoint?

[Dannie Boy]

That article is by Charles R. Anderson, a member of the Cato institute, formerly the Charles Koch Foundation founded by oil industry billionaire Charles Koch who happens to have a $25 billion stake in the oil refining industry.

Yes, I know. That's why I said the author was a skeptic. We are all biased. The question is, are the many points he makes valid from a scientific, political and financial viewpoint?

You can bet your last $/£ that for every point he makes, there will be others stating the complete opposite and backed up with facts and figures so that joe public has no idea who to believe!!

[STEVE G]

The question is, are the many points he makes valid from a scientific, political and financial viewpoint?

I don't have the time to go through all of it but taking the first point in his refutal of the theory:

"1) The rise of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1850 to the level of 2008 made almost no difference in the infra-red radiation absorbed since almost all of the infra-red radiation was already being absorbed that CO2 can absorb in 1850."

This paper refers:

"Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate."

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges

[STEVE G]

"2) The greenhouse gas models treat the Earth's surface as a black body thermal radiator. Black body radiators are a very special idealization which the surface of the Earth does not much resemble. Real objects are characterized by an emissivity constant of less than 1. The black body radiator has an emissivity of 1."

They don't:

"ε is the effective emissivity of earth, about 0.612"

Climate Models
http://earth.usc.edu/classes/geol150/st ... Models.dwt

[MrPlum]

I don't have the time to go through all of it but taking the first point in his refutal of the theory:

This paper refers:

"Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate."

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

How can you draw any firm conclusions from this? Even the authors don't. They have only 2 data points. Their conclusion is 'inferred'. The differences 'point to'. The 'significant' increase is not quantified and the lack of any warming for 15 years shows the computer models are flawed.

Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.

Cough! Cough! Splutter!... Say what?!!

What else did Mr Jones say? '15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.' having previously said in 2009... ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

Such scientific wriggling is probably why the UK's Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport'

There you go. It's been a commie plot all along.

Not to worry though, high CO2 levels turn out to be pretty damn handy, preventing the advent of a new Ice Age... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16439807

Well fancy that.

[Frank Hovis]

I'd rather have it getting hotter than colder, that's for sure.

[STEVE G]

How can you draw any firm conclusions from this? Even the authors don't. They have only 2 data points.

3 now:

"The authors present a new study that extends this to 2003, through the first use of a new, independent source of global atmospheric infrared spectra, from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) experiment. AIRS is a dispersion grating spectrometer, while the other two were Fourier transform spectrometers, and this is taken into account in the analysis. The observed difference spectrum between the years 2003 and 1970 generally shows the signatures of greenhouse gas forcing, and also shows the sensitivity of the signatures to interannual variations in temperature. The new 2003 data support the conclusions found in the earlier work,..."

Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS
J. A. Griggs* and J. E. Harries
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI4204.1

[MrPlum]

It's not Global Warming after all. It's Global Worming! Killer Worms are on the loose!

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... e1692.html

[STEVE G]

It's not Global Warming after all. It's Global Worming! Killer Worms are on the loose!

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... e1692.html

They're part of the carbon cycle so it won't be a significant problem unless they start driving to their burrows.

[MrPlum]

'The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought.'...
http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... rc=rss|sct

IPCC hoaxers are still defending their dodgy models, though.

[STEVE G]

IPCC hoaxers are still defending their dodgy models, though.

I didn't read anything in that article that said it was a hoax.

[MrPlum]

IPCC hoaxers are still defending their dodgy models, though.

I didn't read anything in that article that said it was a hoax.

They will never say as much, will they? Neither will you, since you are utterly convinced by the science and for some reason, which escapes me, refuses to acknowledge the political, financial and social aspects which dominate our lives in a far greater way than a degree or two increase in temperature and having to stock up on sunglasses.

You are a vanishing species. The masses are no longer buying the alarmist brainwashing because quite clearly, there is no approaching Armageddon. In fact, it is chuffing freezing. How long before the global elite squirm out of 20 years of spin and morph the 'crisis' into Global Cooling that justifies their higher energy bills, carbon taxes and carbon cops, more expensive travel, disfiguring and energy-expensive wind farms?

If you hadn't noticed, we live in a world being run by criminals, for the benefit of criminals.

'Big Pharma' and the FDA are operating a criminal cartel.

The bankers are crooked to the marrow.

Oil companies, you already know about.

Food companies are driving the small farmer into extinction. Monsanto and Cargill are making serious inroads into monopolizing the world's food.

Media and Politicians lie with every utterance.

Military-Industrial-Complex vulture capitalists are rolling over country after country either to grab their resources, force them into the global central banking cartel, prevent them escaping the petro-dollar, or on the orders of the Zionist Masters of The Universe. LIES justify every innocent they murder.

And it's not just the yanks, whose country is being eviscerated by these 'oligarch' mobsters. Even the WHO was part of the Great Swine Flu Caper.

The political, financial and social benefits to the 'elite' are driving this particular scam and the deluded environmentalists refuse to see it.

The models have been deliberately programmed to produce inflated projections.

I know you don't care for my scathing cynicism but it sure looks like fraud to me.

[STEVE G]

I know you don't care for my scathing cynicism...

I'm only interested in the subject from a scientific viewpoint and so far that points to warming.That's why the Arctic Ocean is melting and weather patterns are changing in the Northern hemisphere.
If it wasn't happening, you wouldn't have all those companies that are now edging into the arctic, drilling for oil, establishing shipping routes and building new ports as it would still be frozen.

[MrPlum]

I'm only interested in the subject from a scientific viewpoint and so far that points to warming.That's why the Arctic Ocean is melting and weather patterns are changing in the Northern hemisphere.
If it wasn't happening, you wouldn't have all those companies that are now edging into the arctic, drilling for oil, establishing shipping routes and building new ports as it would still be frozen.

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/te ... l-warming/

MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.