[Global] Warming Might be On Hold, Study Finds
"Earth's climate continues to confound scientists. Following a 30-year trend of warming, global temperatures have flatlined since 2001 despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that should have cranked up the planetary thermostat.
"'This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950,' Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. "Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn't have one.'"
If scientists don't understand what is causing current cooling, it is axiomatic that they do not understand what controls warming, either.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
We don't understand where CO2 comes from or where it goes!
We cannot understand the effect of CO2 on climate change, and it is folly to attempt to regulate it, if we do not know all the sources and sinks of CO2. The USA launched a satellite to study the issue -- a satellite which failed to reach orbit. Canada already has a functioning satellite to try to find answers to this essential question.
"The problem is that where carbon dioxide comes from, and where it is sucked out of the atmosphere, remains poorly understood.
"Clearly, if we're going to do something about climate change, we need to understand where CO2 is produced and particularly where it's absorbed.That's much less clear,' Quine said." [Ben Quine, the director of space engineering at York University]
article here
"The problem is that where carbon dioxide comes from, and where it is sucked out of the atmosphere, remains poorly understood.
"Clearly, if we're going to do something about climate change, we need to understand where CO2 is produced and particularly where it's absorbed.That's much less clear,' Quine said." [Ben Quine, the director of space engineering at York University]
article here
Monday, February 16, 2009
An astronaut skeptic
Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming.
"I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.
read the rest in The Boston Herald
"I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.
read the rest in The Boston Herald
Saturday, February 14, 2009
No sea level rise
While global warming alarmists continue to spout shocking predictions about our coasts being inundated by rising sea levels, the best data given current interpretations is that the sea levels have not risen for several years.
An article by Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientist Josh Willis describes a project for measuring sea level from 3000 autonomous ocean floats maintained by the Argo project.
Willis is an ardent believer in global warming, caused by man. Note: "Now that humans have become a major force in the Earth’s climate, it is of paramount importance to build and maintain observing systems that can keep track of our ever-increasing impact." He has accepted the dogma that humans are a "major force" in earth's climate.
Willis also believes that the oceans will give us the easiest and best guage of global warming. "The most sensitive yardstick of human influence on the climate is the rise in globally-averaged sea level. On climate-relevant time-scales, total sea level rise equals the sum of the melt water from glaciers and ice sheets, plus the thermal expansion of seawater caused by absorption of excess heat. The first effect represents the response of the ice to a warming atmosphere. The second is directly related to the balance of incoming and outgoing energy of the Earth as a whole. That’s because 80 – 90% of the excess energy from anthropogenic forcing winds up warming the oceans (Levitus et al., 2005)."
Nevertheless, earlier data showed a rapid drop in sea levels, a fact reported by Rush Limbaugh, to the consternation of the "consensus" that man was causing dangerous warming.
With greater care to reduce software and measuring biases, a corrected result has been obtained. Sea level measurements when corrected for these errors no longer show rapid global sea level decline (and therefore global cooling). On the other hand, they show no sea level rise, either. Assuming that the glaciers are melting into the oceans, which would normally cause sea level increases, sea volume (per equivalent mass of H20) must be shrinking by an amount that counteracts the added glacial melt. Why? Because there is no rise in sea level from 2003 to 2006.
Josh Willis' article is a cautionary tale about the difficulty of accurately measuring anything that relates to global climate. It is also sobering for global warming alarmists. Sea levels may not be falling. But they do not appear to be rising, contrary to the shrieking of scientists and activists trying to convince us that we are destroying the planet with greenhouse gases.
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- the scientific "consensus" -- predicts a sea level rise of 0.18 - 0.59 meters ( 7 - 23 inches) by the year 2099, depending on the models and assumptions used. If sea levels were to rise 0.5 meters (approximately 18 inches), that would require an average increase of 5mm/year sea level rise. However, past measurements have shown only a 3mm annual rise, and recent measurements show no rise at all. It appears that even conservative predictions have been overly alarmist.
Either the glaciers are not melting, or the oceans are not warming. How else can one explain the non-rise in sea levels? Possibly both conditions are occurring.
Global surface air temperatures have been in decline for ten years.
The Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing.
Glaciers that have been melting for over a century are now growing. (Actually, on average, glaciers have been melting for over 10,000 years, but that could change. A look at temperature trends over the past 400,000 years indicate we are overdue for a return to a long ice age.)
The melting of Greenland ice is not accelerating, perhaps slowing.
It is time to follow the advice of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "Don't panic!" The people who are trying to incite panic are trying to sell you something.
An article by Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientist Josh Willis describes a project for measuring sea level from 3000 autonomous ocean floats maintained by the Argo project.
Willis is an ardent believer in global warming, caused by man. Note: "Now that humans have become a major force in the Earth’s climate, it is of paramount importance to build and maintain observing systems that can keep track of our ever-increasing impact." He has accepted the dogma that humans are a "major force" in earth's climate.
Willis also believes that the oceans will give us the easiest and best guage of global warming. "The most sensitive yardstick of human influence on the climate is the rise in globally-averaged sea level. On climate-relevant time-scales, total sea level rise equals the sum of the melt water from glaciers and ice sheets, plus the thermal expansion of seawater caused by absorption of excess heat. The first effect represents the response of the ice to a warming atmosphere. The second is directly related to the balance of incoming and outgoing energy of the Earth as a whole. That’s because 80 – 90% of the excess energy from anthropogenic forcing winds up warming the oceans (Levitus et al., 2005)."
Nevertheless, earlier data showed a rapid drop in sea levels, a fact reported by Rush Limbaugh, to the consternation of the "consensus" that man was causing dangerous warming.
With greater care to reduce software and measuring biases, a corrected result has been obtained. Sea level measurements when corrected for these errors no longer show rapid global sea level decline (and therefore global cooling). On the other hand, they show no sea level rise, either. Assuming that the glaciers are melting into the oceans, which would normally cause sea level increases, sea volume (per equivalent mass of H20) must be shrinking by an amount that counteracts the added glacial melt. Why? Because there is no rise in sea level from 2003 to 2006.
Josh Willis' article is a cautionary tale about the difficulty of accurately measuring anything that relates to global climate. It is also sobering for global warming alarmists. Sea levels may not be falling. But they do not appear to be rising, contrary to the shrieking of scientists and activists trying to convince us that we are destroying the planet with greenhouse gases.
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- the scientific "consensus" -- predicts a sea level rise of 0.18 - 0.59 meters ( 7 - 23 inches) by the year 2099, depending on the models and assumptions used. If sea levels were to rise 0.5 meters (approximately 18 inches), that would require an average increase of 5mm/year sea level rise. However, past measurements have shown only a 3mm annual rise, and recent measurements show no rise at all. It appears that even conservative predictions have been overly alarmist.
Either the glaciers are not melting, or the oceans are not warming. How else can one explain the non-rise in sea levels? Possibly both conditions are occurring.
Global surface air temperatures have been in decline for ten years.
The Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing.
Glaciers that have been melting for over a century are now growing. (Actually, on average, glaciers have been melting for over 10,000 years, but that could change. A look at temperature trends over the past 400,000 years indicate we are overdue for a return to a long ice age.)
The melting of Greenland ice is not accelerating, perhaps slowing.
It is time to follow the advice of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "Don't panic!" The people who are trying to incite panic are trying to sell you something.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Carbon credits/trading "a scam"
President Obama and John McCain both campaigned on instuting a system of trading carbon credits ("cap and trade") as a means to reduce CO2 release. But rabid promoters of the global warming scare say such a system is a poor way to accomplish the goal.
"Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning," says James Lovelock, originator of the GAIA theory, and longtime environmental alarmist.
About carbon sequestration, another technique President Obama wants to promote, Lovelock says, "That is a waste of time. It's a crazy idea - and dangerous. It would take so long and use so much energy that it will not be done."
James Hansen, the "famous NASA scientist" who has been raising global warming alarm for many years, dissented from the current plans of Democratic Party environmentalists on their plans to deal with carbon release. From the Wall Street Journal:
"...Mr. Hansen endorses a straight carbon tax as the only 'honest, clear and effective' way to reduce emissions, with the revenues rebated in their entirety to consumers on a per-capita basis. 'Not one dime should go to Washington for politicians to pick winners,' he writes."
While Hansen may have lost his head when describing trains delivering coal to power generating plants as equivalent to the Nazi death trains bringing Jews to concentration camp crematoria, he seems to be clear on the incestuous relation between politicians and industry that would be fostered by "cap and trade."
What is cap and trade? Wikipedia gives a good overview. "A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed." Al Gore's company and others like it will make millions brokering such trades.
Again, from the Wall Street Journal: "[Washington politicians prefer] posturing that disguises the cost of rising energy prices, such as cap and trade. This 'subterfuge,' as Mr. Hansen terms it, shifts the direct burden onto businesses, which then pass it along to consumers. Congress may flatter itself that it is saving mankind, but what the Members really want is a cap-and-trade windfall that they can redistribute in the green pork of Mr. Obama's 'new energy economy,' whatever that means."
It's all about money. Government money, regulations, and tax breaks benefitting big corporations and businesses. Pork. Now it becomes green pork. Haven't we had enough reckless spending already?
"Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning," says James Lovelock, originator of the GAIA theory, and longtime environmental alarmist.
About carbon sequestration, another technique President Obama wants to promote, Lovelock says, "That is a waste of time. It's a crazy idea - and dangerous. It would take so long and use so much energy that it will not be done."
James Hansen, the "famous NASA scientist" who has been raising global warming alarm for many years, dissented from the current plans of Democratic Party environmentalists on their plans to deal with carbon release. From the Wall Street Journal:
"...Mr. Hansen endorses a straight carbon tax as the only 'honest, clear and effective' way to reduce emissions, with the revenues rebated in their entirety to consumers on a per-capita basis. 'Not one dime should go to Washington for politicians to pick winners,' he writes."
While Hansen may have lost his head when describing trains delivering coal to power generating plants as equivalent to the Nazi death trains bringing Jews to concentration camp crematoria, he seems to be clear on the incestuous relation between politicians and industry that would be fostered by "cap and trade."
What is cap and trade? Wikipedia gives a good overview. "A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed." Al Gore's company and others like it will make millions brokering such trades.
Again, from the Wall Street Journal: "[Washington politicians prefer] posturing that disguises the cost of rising energy prices, such as cap and trade. This 'subterfuge,' as Mr. Hansen terms it, shifts the direct burden onto businesses, which then pass it along to consumers. Congress may flatter itself that it is saving mankind, but what the Members really want is a cap-and-trade windfall that they can redistribute in the green pork of Mr. Obama's 'new energy economy,' whatever that means."
It's all about money. Government money, regulations, and tax breaks benefitting big corporations and businesses. Pork. Now it becomes green pork. Haven't we had enough reckless spending already?
Monday, December 29, 2008
Physicists may save us from climate alarmists
The physics community is starting to move into the global warming fray in a more public way. 2008 saw two physics publications endorse more debate and skepticism about the claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- especially claims that we are facing catastrophe of some sort.
These catastrophic predictions are based on computer models, which are essentially complex mathematical formulas. These formulas are the product of educated guesswork about how factors like sunlight, water vapor, the reflectivity of the earth's surface, CO2, methane, aerosols, and a few other factors act and interact with each other to increase or decrease global temperature. Physics is a field that is built on the bedrock of mathematics. Physicists are starting to intensely analyse and critique the models that climate scientists are using to predict disaster ahead as a result of man's fossil fuel usage.
Most recently, an editorial in Physics Today concluded, "Although the radiative [i.e. warming] effect of CO2 cannot be ignored, the science of climate change is more complex than presented by the IPCC." Author Roger A. Pielke Sr., senior research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science, continues, "Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond... CO2." (Physics Today, November 2008) In other words, the climate models are not sufficient to account for the many effects (both warming and cooling effects) of human activity.
Earlier this year in the Forum on Physics & Society, an online publication of the American Physical Society (the second largest organization of physicists in the world), an editorial announced, "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that [man-made] CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con." Whereas Al Gore says that the debate is over, a large group of qualified physicists still feel that debate is essential, because limiting carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases could have serious impact on our economy, and may be unnecessary. In short, many physicists and scientists in general do not agree that it is certain humans are primarily responsible for global warming.
Serious debate in scientific journals is needed. Such debate has started in the physics community. We need to understand climate before we think about attempting to manipulate it. So far, a "considerable presence within the scientific community" feel that we do not have that level of expertise and understanding.
These catastrophic predictions are based on computer models, which are essentially complex mathematical formulas. These formulas are the product of educated guesswork about how factors like sunlight, water vapor, the reflectivity of the earth's surface, CO2, methane, aerosols, and a few other factors act and interact with each other to increase or decrease global temperature. Physics is a field that is built on the bedrock of mathematics. Physicists are starting to intensely analyse and critique the models that climate scientists are using to predict disaster ahead as a result of man's fossil fuel usage.
Most recently, an editorial in Physics Today concluded, "Although the radiative [i.e. warming] effect of CO2 cannot be ignored, the science of climate change is more complex than presented by the IPCC." Author Roger A. Pielke Sr., senior research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science, continues, "Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond... CO2." (Physics Today, November 2008) In other words, the climate models are not sufficient to account for the many effects (both warming and cooling effects) of human activity.
Earlier this year in the Forum on Physics & Society, an online publication of the American Physical Society (the second largest organization of physicists in the world), an editorial announced, "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that [man-made] CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con." Whereas Al Gore says that the debate is over, a large group of qualified physicists still feel that debate is essential, because limiting carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases could have serious impact on our economy, and may be unnecessary. In short, many physicists and scientists in general do not agree that it is certain humans are primarily responsible for global warming.
Serious debate in scientific journals is needed. Such debate has started in the physics community. We need to understand climate before we think about attempting to manipulate it. So far, a "considerable presence within the scientific community" feel that we do not have that level of expertise and understanding.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Media Thought Police: Global Warming Skeptic Banned From TV
"FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV.
"A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm.Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.
"His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming. "
Read the rest...
"A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm.Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.
"His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming. "
Read the rest...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
