11 May - Climate in Contention II

 I kept merrily adding more and more material to the post...until I reached a point where the edifice broke repeatedly. So I took some material from the file to start anew while I 'froze' the original.

 

Seeing the Wood for Trees

Welcome to WoodForTrees.org. This site hosts some C++ software tools for analysis and graphing of time series data, and an interactive graph generator where you can play with different ways of analysing data.

Climate data

These tools could in theory be used for any time series but the main rationale for their existence is for analysis of historical climate data. The idea is to allow you to go to the source data and look for answers to questions like:

• Has the Earth got warmer recently?
• Is it still getting warmer?
• Is CO₂ the only explanation for what has happened?
• Are there solar cycles involved?
• Are there other influences we don't understand yet?
• If so, how much do they account for?
• What is likely to happen next?

http://www.woodfortrees.org

The 60-Second Climate Skeptic

  CO2 does indeed absorb reflected sunlight returning to space from earth, having a warming effect.  However, this effect is a diminishing return — each successive increment of CO2 concentrations will have a much smaller effect on temperatures than the previous increment. 

In the 20th century, the UN IPCC claims Earth’s surface temperatures have increased by about a 0.6 degree Celsius Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it is thought that man has increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 0.028% of the atmosphere to 0.038% of the atmosphere. 

Using simple math, we see that if temperatures have risen 0.6C due to 36% of a doubling, we might expect them to rise by 1.67C for a full doubling to 0.056% of the atmosphere.  But this assumes that the rise is linear — and we already said (and no one denies) that it is in fact a diminishing return relationship.  Using a truer form of the curve, a 0.6C historic rise for 36% of a doubling implies a full doubling would raise temperatures by about 1.2C, or about 0.6C more than we have seen to date (see chart below).   This means that the magnitude of global warming in the next century might be about what we have seen (and apparently survived) since 1900. 

To believe sensitivity is 3, we would have to have seen temperature rises due to man historically of 1.5C, which nobody believes.  

So how do they get accelerating temperatures from what they admit to be a diminishing return relation between CO2 concentration and temperature? And for which there is no empirical evidence?  Answer:  Positive feedback.   Almost every process you can think of in nature operates by negative feedback. 

There is no empirical evidence at all that positive feedbacks in climate dominate negative feedbacks.Long-term temperature record demonstrates that positive feedbacks can’t dominate, because past increases in temperature and CO2 have not run away. Characterizations of stable natural processes as being dominated by positive feedback should offend the intuition and common sense of any scientist. 

The developing world will be far better off hotter by a degree and richer than it would be cooler and poorer.  This is particularly true since sources like an Inconvenient Truth wildly exaggerate the negative effects of global warming.  

see my longer paper on global warming skepticism  

Science professor, a former global warming believer now denier, publishes groundbreaking paper to prove carbon dioxide cools, not warms our atmosphere. 

In his new paper, ‘Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands’ the Mexican biologist turned climate researcher proves that in nature, CO2 and water vapor mix together to decrease infrared radiation emissions/absorptions in the air. This is the opposite of what conventional climatology has been saying years.

Click source to read FULL report from John O'Sullivan

Source Link: suite101.com

Hill Heat

Science Policy Legislation Action

 Space and Science Research Corporation

Climate Threat

Why Should We Be Concerned about the Next Cold Climate Era?

 

This new era called a 'solar hibernation' or 'grand minimum' is caused by a repeating 206 year cycle of the Sun.  These hibernations are accompanied by historic reductions in the energy putput of the Sun. SSRC research shows the next solar hibernation will bring a long period of cold just as it has done before every time this cycle 'turns over' from its global warming phase to its global cooling phase.

Mr. Casey, President of the SSRC was the first authority to notify the White House and other government agencies of this coming cold era in early 2007. In January 2011, NASA data finally agreed with the original prediction of Mr. Casey for the start of the next solar hibernation as measured by sunspot counts during the current solar cycle 24. The hibernation of the Sun has begun.

This cold era is expected to last for approximately 22 to 33 years with the coldest temperatures to be seen approximately five to seven years either side of the bottom year of the cycle in 2031 and have temperatures on the order of that observed during the Dalton Minimum (1793-1830). We have already seen the early signs of the new climate with record cold winters globally for the last three years. Additionally these cold climates have a characteristic of reducing temperatures in a highly variable manner with extremes of both hot and cold with a general trend of quickly reaching a deep colder level that lingers on for two to three decades. That does not mean we can wait to prepare.  Now that the hibernation has begun, it is possible for these unusual variations in temperatures to strike with little warning. We should not be surprised to see occasional severe crop damage and recurring food shortages in many nations at any time.

The SSRC forecast for this next solar hibernation is similar to the last such occurrence.  Comparisons to that time show that there is a high probability of substantial social, economic and political turmoil worldwide as a result of massive crop losses from the coming cold weather. Additionally, SSRC research and that of other respected researchers shows that geophysical upheavals like the largest earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are likely to occur during these solar events. As before with the Mt. Tambora eruption in 1815, large volcanic eruptions may greatly add to the cooling of the Earth on top of that created by the reduction in the Sun's output.

The SSRC believes this damage to the world's agricultural systems will be sufficient to create conditions that could lead to the world's worst subsistence crisis in recorded history. This same food crisis occurred during the last hibernation, though with significantly fewer people to feed. Historian John D. Post called that time"...the last great subsistence crisis."

The SSRC predicts the first possible time frame for an instance of large scale crop damage is during the record drop in global temperatures predicted by the SSRC to take place between June 2010 and November-December 2012. (See press release 2-2010).

Skepticism vs. Denialism and How to Tell the Difference

Skeptics vs. Deniers: A Workable, Citizen-in-the-Street Definition

So let’s take a stab. In essence, a genuine skeptic is someone who approaches claims to knowledge with a stance that insists on rigorous standards of evidence and demonstration.
When presented with a proposition, he or she asks “what evidence do we have to support this claim?” Evidence is scrutinized with a critical eye, and he or she thinks about things like possible alternate hypotheses. Is the condition or phenomenon real? If so, what else would it explain it? Is the evidence credible? Are those arguing for or against the hypothesis credible? Can findings be replicated? And so on.
Skeptics holds themselves accountable to a high set of intellectual standards and act according to the good faith assumptions of the community of research and inquiry of which they are nominally a part. They understand that intellectual pursuits are ultimately communal, in that all involved operate according to a shared set of rules and ethical codes. This doesn’t mean the process isn’t occasionally confrontational and even antagonistic – it certainly is, and a rigorous process demands it – but it understands that the laws of the universe don’t conform to “us vs. them” partisanship.
The genuine skeptic has a mind that’s large enough to accommodate states between “proven” and “false.”* That is, the skeptic understands that sometimes we just don’t know yet and he or she is comfortable saying we don’t know. The skeptic often encounters cases where it seems possible, perhaps even likely, that a proposition is true, although the evidence to demonstrate it conclusively hasn’t been presented yet. When asked about such a case, that’s exactly the answer he or she gives – the evidence we have suggests X is plausible, although we need  more study. A really informed skeptic can then tell you, in some detail, what kinds of study are needed and precisely what standards of proof need to be met in order to move the needle forward (or backward).
In other words, skeptics are at ease with uncertainty. They know that it’s impossible to know everything. And they feel no compulsion to arrive at a conclusion before its time, whether that conclusion is an acceptance of a hypothesis or its rejection.
What the skeptic does not do is reject a proposition out of hand.

 On the gargantuan lie of climate change science

Based on a public event organized by the geography student association at Universite du Quebec a Montreal (UQAM).
By Denis G. Rancourt


In all of human history, what was believed and promoted by the majority of service intellectuals (high priests) in each civilization was only created and maintained to support the hierarchy and the place of the high priests within the hierarchy. To believe that the present is any different regarding any issue managed by our “experts”, whether in medicine, psychology, cosmology, economics, law and governance, population health or ecology, is pure distilled idiocy.

Never mind that the whole climate change scam is now driven by the top-level financiers newly eyeing a multi-trillion-dollar paper economy of carbon trading and that this is the reason it’s now a dominant mainstream media and corporate messaging presence [1].

Never mind that this paper economy of carbon trading will be the largest financial extortion enterprise since the invention of the US-centered military-backed global finance structure of predation itself.

Never mind that establishment scientists are service intellectuals who virtually never diverge from supporting power, who at best look for sanitized and hypothetical “problems” that do not threaten hierarchy and who feed their false self-image of relevance [2][3].

Never mind also the pathetic recent historical record of science with regard to identifying or solving public health and environmental problems [4][5][6].

Never mind all that. Take the red pill by considering the climate “science” fairy tale itself and examine its story elements.

Here goes, in five story-element steps.


Research on Forecasting for the Manmade Global Warming Alarm

The validity of the manmade global warming alarm requires the support of scientific forecasts of (1) a
substantive long-term rise in global mean temperatures in the absence of regulations, (2) serious net
harmful effects due to global warming, and (3) cost-effective regulations that would produce net
beneficial effects versus alternatives policies, including doing nothing.
Without scientific forecasts for all three aspects of the alarm, there is no scientific basis to enact
regulations. In effect, the warming alarm is like a three-legged stool: each leg needs to be strong. Despite
repeated appeals to global warming alarmists, we have been unable to find scientific forecasts for any of
the three legs.
We drew upon scientific (evidence-based) forecasting principles to audit the forecasting
procedures used to forecast global mean temperatures by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC)—leg “1” of the stool. This audit found that the IPCC procedures violated 81% of the 89 relevant
forecasting principles.
 On average, the forecasting procedures violated 85% of the 90 relevant principles.
The warming alarmists have not demonstrated the predictive validity of their procedures. Instead,
their argument for predictive validity is based on their claim that nearly all scientists agree with the
forecasts. This count of “votes” by scientists is not only an incorrect tally of scientific opinion, it is also,
and most importantly, contrary to the scientific method
.......Based on our own analyses and the documented unscientific behavior of global warming
alarmists, we concluded that the global warming alarm is the product of an anti-scientific political
movement.

Having come to this conclusion, we turned to the “structured analogies” method to forecast the
likely outcomes of the warming alarmist movement. In our ongoing study we have, to date, identified 26
similar historical alarmist movements. None of the forecasts behind the analogous alarms proved correct.
Twenty-five alarms involved calls for government intervention and the government imposed regulations
in 23. None of the 23 interventions was effective and harm was caused by 20 of them.
Our findings on the scientific evidence related to global warming forecasts lead to the following
recommendations:
1. End government funding for climate change research.
2. End government funding for research predicated on global warming (e.g., alternative energy;
CO2
reduction; habitat loss).
3. End government programs and repeal regulations predicated on global warming.
4. End government support for organizations that lobby or campaign predicated on global
warming.

Lobbyists who cleared 'Climategate' academics funded by taxpayers and the BBC

A shadowy lobby group which pushes the case that global warming is a real threat is being funded by the taxpayer and assisted by the BBC.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8469883/Lobbyists-who-cleared-Climategate-academics-funded-by-taxpayers-and-the-BBC.html