Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Smurf1976]

I am with you there Julia Tassie will become an even greater place to live if the average temps lift by a couple of degrees!!

Only problem is that most of our beaches would disappear, half our roads would go under and there would be hundreds of millions of refugees seeking somewhere dry to live

The lack of rain in Hobart over the past few months is starting to become an issue. It got a bit wet for a while, but it's blue sky and sunshine most days, the bush is bone dry and this is in the middle of Winter! Went for a walk this morning and found that the creek near me is completely dry.

Might have to add major bush fires and half the place being burnt to the ground next Summer to the list of problems if this continues. I hope not, but it's way too dry for this time of year at the moment.

It could be argued that this is a continuation of the drought that began in 1998 and that last Winter's high rainfall was simply an aberration.

Anyway, it's a nice Spring day outside with typical Spring weather. In Winter...

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Its getting dry here in Townsville, as is usual midwinter.

We had a very good wet season and good follow up early winter showers for most.

Polar bears still not visible from the Texas Holdem tables at Jupiters Casino, so the Copenhagen fiasco must have slowed something down.

Penny Wong never seen in Townsville either for what its worth.

gg

 

[trainspotter]

"In our study, the biggest aerosol effect on climate came from the effect of aerosol-cloud indirect effect. Over the century, it cooled the surface air temperatures -1 °C, with more cooling in the northern hemisphere than in the south. Snow and ice cover increased 1% globally and 4% in the Arctic. Global cloud cover also increased by 0.5%.

The aerosol direct effect cooled the climate over the century by -0.2 °C, also more in the north than the southern hemisphere. It also caused a small increase in cloud and snow/ice cover."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/koch_04/

Now I am completely confused? Is NASA backing this thesis? Does not seem right to me? Afterall we have all the data clearly showing it is warming don't we?

June 28, 2010 http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100628/

NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. recently introduced the NASA Center for Climate Simulation (NCCS), an integrated set of supercomputing, visualization, and data interaction technologies that will enhance agency capabilities in weather and climate prediction research.

 

[jonojpsg]

"In our study, the biggest aerosol effect on climate came from the effect of aerosol-cloud indirect effect. Over the century, it cooled the surface air temperatures -1 °C, with more cooling in the northern hemisphere than in the south. Snow and ice cover increased 1% globally and 4% in the Arctic. Global cloud cover also increased by 0.5%.

The aerosol direct effect cooled the climate over the century by -0.2 °C, also more in the north than the southern hemisphere. It also caused a small increase in cloud and snow/ice cover."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/koch_04/

Now I am completely confused? Is NASA backing this thesis? Does not seem right to me? Afterall we have all the data clearly showing it is warming don't we?

Isn't it just saying that the aerosol effect contributed those changes to the overall climate pattern, eg without the aerosol effect we would be that much warmer than we are? If so, thank goodness for the aerosol effect!

 

[DB008]

Got this in my e-mail.
Please don't shot me, l'm just the messenger.

http://australianconservative.com/2010/08/blacklisted-scientist-challenges-global-warming-orthodoxy/

Here is the text from the link above;

Blacklisted scientist challenges global warming orthodoxy

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for years has been predicting the greenhouse effect can spin out of control. They claim that there exists a scientific consensus that CO2 is pushing the planet into an unrestrained greenhouse effect, that it’s raising global temperatures and it must be stopped. IPCC was created in the 1980s by the United Nations. They have released findings that say that carbon-based emissions released into the atmosphere by humans, mostly in wealthy, Western countries, must be reduced, or a catastrophe will result. They have frequently used this scare tactic. It has been easy to frighten people, as the science involved takes some significant and serious study. Most people have relied on expert opinions because they lack their own expert knowledge in the field, a factor the IPCC has relied upon in the past.

Today Hungarian atmospheric physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, says he has found and proven that the IPCC and their experts are wrong in their theory about how the greenhouse effect works. In the process, he has shown that changing CO2 concentrations are not the determining factor the IPCC and other scientists claim.

Over the last 20 years Miskolczi achieved several results which prove that the greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere is completely dependent on energy. The IPCC would have the world believe that it is the ingredients of the atmosphere which matter more than the energy, and that it is rising levels of CO2 that are causing global warming.

Working with a number of sets of temperature and humidity data from all over the world, Miskolczi has found that the greenhouse effect is a balance of energy dependent primarily on the sun. This is something reasonable people have recognised for some time but haven’t been able to prove without the same sort of heavy science and math the IPCC experts have been using. Those who disagree with the IPCC’s conclusions have needed some form of proof to back their positions. Until now, those proofs have been too few in number to slow Anthropogenic Global Warming’s (AGW) momentum backed with billions of dollars. Solid science which can be verified and recreated has been needed and Miskolczi claims that his research has finally provided just that. New mathematical equations seem to have put the players in this climate game into their proper places.

To put it very simply, Dr. Miskolczi has described previously unknown properties of our atmosphere.

Unfortunately it isn’t as clean and easy as E=mc2. The very complexity of climate science has been used to kick sand into the eyes of the public, blinding us to alternative theories whether they are correct or not. The science is so difficult to follow that no one can refute the IPCC without discussing concepts most of the public don’t have the time or desire to learn. So by default the IPCC has owned the conversation and the playing field. What’s more, they have some big allies in supporting positions.

At the time of his original discovery Dr. Miskolczi was a contractor for NASA and had published many times in renowned journals with his colleagues there; he resigned his position in 2005 when NASA refused to publish work contradicting AGW.

Despite being blacklisted by the scientific community supporting AGW, he has continued his research proving and refining his results. However, this same community is also the one which peer reviews work like this. When a scientist is tossed off this team, they can’t get their work reviewed and pushed to the press as being “peer reviewed.” Despite this handicap Miskolczi has persevered, just this month publishing yet again, this time proving with observations that the greenhouse effect is actually stable.

Miskolczi does not appear to be saying that global warming or cooling doesn’t occur. Instead, he shows that CO2 does not and cannot increase the surface temperature of the Earth independently of incoming energy. In his paper he provides a graph spanning 61 years from 1948-2008. It shows that the greenhouse effect remains constant while CO2 concentrations have risen. Miskolczi has found physical proof that the greenhouse effect works differently than previously thought and it isn’t affected by changes in carbon dioxide.

Lacking now is an honest scientific community’s review of his work, something hard to get once you have been kicked off the team.

The American and international press have also ignored this publication. Though more articles appear daily contradicting the IPCC, this single decisive discovery, if true, completely dismantles the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Amazingly it has yet to make the front page.

For more information Dr. Miskloczi’s latest paper can be found here: Ferenc Miskolczi: The stable stationary value of the earth’s global average atmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness (Energy & Environment Vol. 21 No 4, 2010 August Special Issue: Paradigms in Climate Research), and is available at Multi-Science Publishing Co., Great Britain.

Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi can be contacted at: fmiskolczi@cox.net .

Dianna Cotter is a Golden Key International Honor Society Member and student at American Military University. She writes for Examiner.com and Family Security Matters. She currently resides in Oregon with her husband and three children. Dianna Cotter can be contacted at cotter.d.c@gmail.com.

ALSO

 

[ghotib]

Don't shoot me; I'm just trying to understand.

Dr Roy Spencer is one of the very few climate scientists who still has doubts that human activities have changed the climate of the planet. His rebuttal of Miskolczi's theory is here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi’s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/. The introduction reads:

Comments on Miskolczi’s (2010) Controversial Greenhouse Theory
August 5th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

SPECIAL MESSAGE: For those following Miskolczi’s work, and his claims regarding “Aa=Ed”, if those two radiative fluxes (Aa and Ed) are not EXACTLY equal, then Miskolczi has found nothing that disagrees with current greenhouse theory. That they are NEARLY equal has been known for a long time (e.g. Kiehl & Trenberth, 1997). Their near-equality is due to the fact that IR radiative flows are continuously “trying” to achieve radiative equilibrium between layers of the atmosphere, and between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. If those two quantities were more “un-equal” then they are in nature, then radiation-induced temperature changes in the atmosphere, and at the surface, would be much larger than we observe.

Again…if Aa does not EXACTLY balance Ed, then Miskolczi has found NOTHING that departs from the fundamental mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

ADDENDUM…his additional finding of a relatively constant greenhouse effect from 60 years of radiosonde data (because humidity decreases have offset CO2 increases) is indeed tantalizing. But few people believe long-term trends in radiosonde humidities. His result depends upon the reality of unusually high humidities in the 1950s and 1960s. Without those, there is no cancellation between decreasing humidity and increasing CO2 as he claims.

What is conservative about messing with the only climate human civilisation has ever known?

Ghoti

 

[Knobby22]

Bushfires in Russia, this year is shaping up to be one of the hottest ever. and some people are still thinking.

Signs of a tipping point in the debate with climate sceptics Jo Chandler
August 17, 2010


Deniers are swapping sides as the evidence continues to build.

There's a lot of talk about ''tipping points'' in the climate science literature these days. It's an innocuous enough little phrase, implying just a nudge over the edge of something. But in climate terms, that step beyond the ''critical threshold'' is a doozy.

In warming scenarios, a tipping point is a mechanism that sweeps us off the edge of the recognisable planet. These narratives are most usually and soberly described in the pages of scientific journals, yet they read like the plot of a Hollywood thriller - think The Day After Tomorrow - but with warming suddenly supercharged by melting permafrost or by clouds of methane belching from beneath the seas, the seas rising by metres as the great polar ice sheets collapse, the powerhouse of the ocean conveyer system failing, or the waters becoming too acidic to nurture life.

These are real enough threats to warrant the intense scrutiny of many of the sharpest scientific minds of our age. Nonetheless, great uncertainties surround each of these scenarios. What is the evidence, the probability? When and how fast? What capacity might nature have to put itself right? What lever might humanity pull?

Uncertainty and doubt are comforting to people who don't want to face the climate spectre - the get-out clause. And frankly, who can blame them?

Uncertainty and doubt are also the most valued currency available to campaigners involved in the orchestrated effort to debunk the science of warming. As US spinmeister Frank Luntz famously counselled Republicans in a leaked 2003 memo on ''winning'' the global warming debate: ''The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.

''Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming in the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.''

But has a confluence of extreme weather (fire, floods, heatwaves, mud slides) and dogged science - sober, clear consensus statements such as that released yesterday by the Australian Academy of Science - finally outmanoeuvred the engineers of denial? Are we at a tipping point in terms of public comprehension of the climate crisis? In terms of campaign denialism, is the jig up?

The front page of The New York Times, a publication not known for getting hot under the collar about climate, yesterday featured a photographic display of floods in Pakistan, wildfires in Russia, and wild storms in Chicago with the headline, ''In Weather Chaos, A Case for Global Warming''. Might these far-flung disasters be linked? ''The collective answer of the scientific community can be boiled down to a single word: probably.'' More frequent, more intense weather events and excessive heat were all ''consistent with our understanding of how the climate responds to increasing greenhouse gases'', said Jay Lawrimore of the US National Climatic Data Centre.

''If you ask me as a person, do I think the Russian heat wave has to do with climate change, the answer is yes,'' said NASA's Gavin Schmidt. ''If you ask me as a scientist whether I have proved it, the answer is no - at least, not yet.''

Last week, the science editor of Britain's proudly sceptical Daily Mail filed a long article from the Arctic under the headline, ''The Crack in the Roof of the World: Yes, Global Warming is Real - and Deeply Worrying''.

''I have long been something of a climate-change sceptic,'' wrote Michael Hanlon. (One commentator describes him as Britain's most influential sceptic.) ''But my views in recent years have shifted. For me, the most convincing evidence that something worrying is going on lies right here in the Arctic . . .

''I still believe climate change has probably been exaggerated, but after coming here it is impossible to maintain that nothing is going on.'' It's doubt, but not as we know it.

Climateprogress.org, a blog run by scientist and former Clinton administration official Joe Romm, documents a half dozen recent ''scales-from-their-eyes'' moments in sceptical or previously mute publications, among them a Canadian bastion of the right, the National Post, lambasting global warming deniers as ''a liability to the conservative cause''.

So is this the tipping point in the debate? On this, it pays to be sceptical. Let's remember it was in the super-heated summer of 1988 when NASA's James Hansen went to Washington DC and sounded the alarm. Twenty-two summers later, and here we are.

Australian scientists are to be congratulated for enunciating clearly, at this critical moment, what is not in doubt - that an increase in greenhouse gases as a result of human industry pushes up temperatures, and that these are now at the highest levels seen in 800,000 years.

There is still much to doubt about the consequences. But am I strange? Why do I find so little comfort in uncertainty? As veteran British climate writer Fred Pearce observes, sceptics have a valid point when they say that climate predictions are far less certain than is often claimed. But ''those sceptics are dreadfully wrong to take comfort in this . . . There is chaos out there, and we should be afraid.''

Jo Chandler is an Age senior writer.

 

[wayneL]

I've just bough several thousand hectares on Baffin Island for a song.

Plans available now. Reserve your house block before the great NW passage rush.

(Just adding more argumentative fallacies into the rich vein of them in the preceding post. )

 

[Knobby22]

I'd buy a block.
I really would be interested. If you could locate it in a good position as a port for the new arctic shipping channel you could do really well.


Recently published data from DAMOCLES scientists reveal that another critical minimum for Arctic sea ice can be expected in September 2010.

http://www.damocles-eu.org/research/Sea_ice_in_the_Arctic_does_not_recover.shtml

 

[derty]

Here is another good site for monitoring the Arctic sea ice, updated almost daily. From their data the current ice extents are greater than for the same period in 2007 after a cooler July and they seem to think it is unlikely that the 2007 minimum will be breached. Even then it is still on track to be the second lowest ice extent on record.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

[wayneL]

Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice seams to be heading for a record high.

There are a number of possibilities for this.

 

[wayneL]

This will be interesting:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4026330/Niwa-sued-over-data-accuracy

There was a 1980 "peer reviewed" paper outlining that the NZ weather record is rubbish... and now it's mainstream science?

Niwa sued over data accuracy

The country's state-owned weather and atmospheric research body is being taken to court in a challenge over the accuracy of its data used to calculate global warming.

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition said it had lodged papers with the High Court asking the court to invalidate the official temperatures record of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa).

The lobby of climate sceptics and ACT Party have long criticised Niwa over its temperature data, which Niwa says is mainstream science and not controversial, and the raw data publicly available.

 

[ghotib]

This PR stunt is the same lie from the same people who tried to attack the New Zealand temperature record late last year, as you can see from this very thread, about Post 216 I think. The data and the adjustments have been on the public record for years.

Ghoti.

 

[wayneL]

This PR stunt is the same lie from the same people who tried to attack the New Zealand temperature record late last year, as you can see from this very thread, about Post 216 I think. The data and the adjustments have been on the public record for years.

Ghoti.

LOL

Anything against your opinion is a lie.

You might want to check the New Zealand Journal of Science, 1980, Vol. 23, 1 – 9 where there is a peer reviewed paper by JWD Hessell (a NZ meteorologist), essentially trashing the NZ temperature because of inappropriate maintenance of sites and completely arbitrary adjustments.

More here http://business.scoop.co.nz/2010/08/16/court-asked-to-invalidate-niwa-temperature-record/


The paper - http://www.investigatemagazine.com/hessell1980.pdf

The Watts study (which warmers like to unjustifiably discount) shows similar factors in the US temp record.

 

[jonojpsg]

Hey wayne have you looked at the data from Oz that I posted a while back? Assuming that our data is OK (straight from BOM website data from each station) it shows a clear warming trend (0.3 degrees) in the average temperatures since 1970. While not much, if it continues we'll be another 0.6 warmer by the end of the century.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Hey wayne have you looked at the data from Oz that I posted a while back? Assuming that our data is OK (straight from BOM website data from each station) it shows a clear warming trend (0.3 degrees) in the average temperatures since 1970. While not much, if it continues we'll be another 0.6 warmer by the end of the century.

The BOM data has been compromised due UHI effects, adjustments and manipulation such as lowering older tempratues and increasing new temprature readings to suit the political agenda. Plenty of discussion on blogs and across the net on climategate, glaciergate, pick-a-gate.....

Speaking of fraud, satellitegate - a breaking story last week proves satellite temperature data has also been compromised - Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful.

Have any of the warmist alarmist on this forum figured out why the US has spent $80B (yes, that's a B) since 1980 to convince you that you need to pay a tax to produce CO2? Ah sorry, forgot religious beliefs can't be changed. Move along, eyes forward, follow the person in front...

 

[Calliope]

Climate hysteria is now over. In the Gillard/Abbott forum of undecided voters last night not a single questionn was about climate change or the ETS

 

[noco]

Climate hysteria is now over. In the Gillard/Abbott forum of undecided voters last night not a single questionn was about climate change or the ETS

Calliope, I believe a vast majority of people are waking up to these "ALARMIST" at long last and are doubting the authenticity of Climate change created by Man's emmissions of CO2 affecting climate change.

Climate change has been happening for thousands of years and will continue to influenced by the Sun and the angle of the Earth's axis to the Sun. This why there has been more disasters in the Northern Hemisphere than their Soutern counterparts. Extreme cold, extreme heat, floods and typhoons.

There is far more CO2 sent into the atmosphere by volcanoes and bush fires than CO2 emmissions created by Man. The ALARMIST never mention this factor in their equations at any time over the past few years.

It's an absolute con particularly by the Greens Socialist Party and Labor to raise revenue resulting in higher cost of living and higher electicity prices.

This is why the Labor Party have resisted debating the subject before the election! Bob Brown stated in the NPC "there will be CPRS in this next term if Labor win the election". This is the deal they have obviously made with Labor to gain their preference vote. Make no mistake the Greens have a twisted agenda.

 

[derty]

There is far more CO2 sent into the atmosphere by volcanoes and bush fires than CO2 emmissions created by Man. The ALARMIST never mention this factor in their equations at any time over the past few years.

No. You're wrong.

Humans ~= 29 Billion tonnes CO2/year

Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.

Every year, fires burn 3 million to 4 million square kilometers of Earth’s land surface area, and release more than a billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide.

...Average annual biomass burning emissions as calculated by our model were 2.5 Pg C year−1 over the 1997–2004 period. The dominant contributors were Africa (49%), South America (13%), equatorial Asia (11%), boreal regions (9%), and Australia (6%)....

...Biomass burning emissions showed large interannual variability with a range of more than 1 Pg C year−1, with a maximum in 1998 (3.2 Pg C year−1) and a minimum in 2000 (2.0 Pg C year−1)...

1Pg C = 1 x10^15g or 1x10^9t = 1 billion tonnes
1 tonne C = 3.67 tonnes CO2
Therefore ave of 2.5Pg C/year = 9.18 billion tonnes CO2 = 31% of human emissions

 

[Julia]

Presently on air an interview with (climate change sceptic) Prof Bob Carter who apparently has a new book out.

http://www.abc.net.au/widebay/programs/612_evenings/