Global Warming - running out of time to prevent ECONOMIC disaster

[BandwidthAddict]

Just for fun: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=8917946

 

[Teleological]

Two interesting articles in Nature:
Subtropical to boreal convergence of tree-leaf temperatures

The oxygen isotope ratio (delta18O) of cellulose is thought to provide a record of ambient temperature and relative humidity during periods of carbon assimilation1, 2. Here we introduce a method to resolve tree-canopy leaf temperature with the use of delta18O of cellulose in 39 tree species. We show a remarkably constant leaf temperature of 21.4 plusminus 2.2 °C across 50° of latitude, from subtropical to boreal biomes. This means that when carbon assimilation is maximal, the physiological and morphological properties of tree branches serve to raise leaf temperature above air temperature to a much greater extent in more northern latitudes. A main assumption underlying the use of delta18O to reconstruct climate history is that the temperature and relative humidity of an actively photosynthesizing leaf are the same as those of the surrounding air3, 4. Our data are contrary to that assumption and show that plant physiological ecology must be considered when reconstructing climate through isotope analysis. Furthermore, our results may explain why climate has only a modest effect on leaf economic traits5 in general.

Ecology: Forest air conditioning

During the growing season, with photosynthesis at its peak, leaf temperatures remain constant over a wide latitudinal range. This is a finding that overturns a common assumption and has various ramifications.

Trees maintain a constant leaf temperature at 21.4deg, irrespective of their location and regardless of what the weather is doing. This has major ramifications for climate models because all the previous climate models assumed (a reasonable assumption) that leaf temperature stays in equilibrium with air temperature.

An example of how unquestioned assumptions can lead to bad logic and reasoning from a scientific perspective, causing society and politicians to blindly put their trust in seemingly reasonable conclusions.

Interesting site:
Icecap

 

[BCO]

Again, thanks for the interesting reading, Telic - just had a quick scan now, but will read it fully in the morning.

 

[BandwidthAddict]

Sanity begins ...

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/aps-fellow-supports-moncktons-position/#more-2118

 

[Teleological]

And the normal annual summer Arctic sea ice melt is slower than last year.
The hurricane season should be a blast though.

 

[BandwidthAddict]

And then the deceit is laid bare:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3393#more-3393

So much for "peer" review. Science is supposed to be open, that is the underlying premise of "peer" review. But you try to get your hands on "their" (climate frauds) data and they delay until the damage has been done.

Edit: As far as I know, this pretty much kills AR4 and thus the whole reason for the economy killing policies. (see comments of blog)

 

[BandwidthAddict]

The hurricane season should be a blast though.

I read a nice article a few years ago that explained calmer seasons when the Earth was hotter, and stormy seasons when the Earth is cooler. The reason, storms need a temperature differential, bigger diff == more power. Hotter Earth meant less diff thus fewer/weaker storms.

Wish I could find that article again, was very well presented.

 

[BCO]

Sanity begins ...

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/aps-fellow-supports-moncktons-position/#more-2118

From the Cohen article you linked to:

Having said all this, it does not mean that there is no threat or that we should not debate some kind of action to control atmospheric CO2. It does mean that the case for immediate draconian measures that will have the effect or restricting world economic growth is poor. It does mean that the climate is unpredictable, even with modern tools, and this implies that continuing to load the atmosphere poses imponderable risks to terrestrial life. I believe that the way to a solution lies with new technology for both energy supply and for directly controlling net emissions. In this regard the role of governments is not to enact restrictive economic measures via market interventions, or to choose the winners in a technology race. Its proper role is to encourage the development and deployment of new technology through direct funding of R&D and through tax incentives for industries that research, develop, and deploy such technology.

Very well put. Do you skeptics agree?

 

[Teleological]

Yep, technology FTW. We shouldn't be stagnant. But the hypocrisy of alarmists should stop. Anybody seen Al Gore's huge new boat named Bio-Solar One (BS-1 ). The Nobel prize-winning alarmist with his lear-jets, mansions, limo's etc. and now a new big "green" boat. If only everybody was as green as he is ...

 

[BCO]

Unfortunately, sometimes a bit of "alarmism" (if you mean Al Gore-type campaigns etc.) is required to break the status quo.

 

[BandwidthAddict]

Unfortunately, sometimes a bit of "alarmism" (if you mean Al Gore-type campaigns etc.) is required to break the status quo.

And then that alarmism leads to record food prices, people starving and economies taking strain (like SA) leading to increased poverty.

For goodness sake, bread is 9 rand a loaf. Just think about that for a minute.

Alarmism is never good. Alarmism is about increasing fear to the benefit of the alarmist. Fear leads to the dark side.

 

[BCO]

And then that alarmism leads to record food prices, people starving and economies taking strain (like SA) leading to increased poverty.

For goodness sake, bread is 9 rand a loaf. Just think about that for a minute.

Alarmism is never good. Alarmism is about increasing fear to the benefit of the alarmist. Fear leads to the dark side.

And all that's attributable to the IPCC and Al Gore?

 

[Teleological]

I think we should all go fly a kite .

 

[mercurial]

Carbon Dioxide Levels Already In Danger Zone, Revised Theory Shows

ScienceDaily (Nov. 9, 2008) — If climate disasters are to be averted, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) must be reduced below the levels that already exist today, according to a study published in Open Atmospheric Science Journal by a group of 10 scientists from the United States, the United Kingdom and France.

The authors, who include two Yale scientists, assert that to maintain a planet similar to that on which civilization developed, an optimum CO2 level would be less than 350 ppm — a dramatic change from most previous studies, which suggested a danger level for CO2 is likely to be 450 ppm or higher. Atmospheric CO2 is currently 385 parts per million (ppm) and is increasing by about 2 ppm each year from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) and from the burning of forests.

"This work and other recent publications suggest that we have reached CO2 levels that compromise the stability of the polar ice sheets," said author Mark Pagani, Yale professor of geology and geophysics. "How fast ice sheets and sea level will respond are still poorly understood, but given the potential size of the disaster, I think it's best not to learn this lesson firsthand."

The statement is based on improved data on the Earth's climate history and ongoing observations of change, especially in the polar regions. The authors use evidence of how the Earth responded to past changes of CO2 along with more recent patterns of climate changes to show that atmospheric CO2 has already entered a danger zone.

According to the study, coal is the largest source of atmospheric CO2 and the one that would be most practical to eliminate. Oil resources already may be about half depleted, depending upon the magnitude of undiscovered reserves, and it is still not practical to capture CO2 emerging from vehicle tailpipes, the way it can be with coal-burning facilities, note the scientists. Coal, on the other hand, has larger reserves, and the authors conclude that "the only realistic way to sharply curtail CO2 emissions is phase out coal use except where CO2 is captured and sequestered."

In their model, with coal emissions phased out between 2010 and 2030, atmospheric CO2 would peak at 400-425 ppm and then slowly decline. The authors maintain that the peak CO2 level reached would depend on the accuracy of oil and gas reserve estimates and whether the most difficult to extract oil and gas is left in the ground.

The authors suggest that reforestation of degraded land and improved agricultural practices that retain soil carbon could lower atmospheric CO2 by as much as 50 ppm. They also dismiss the notion of "geo-engineering" solutions, noting that the price of artificially removing 50 ppm of CO2 from the air would be about $20 trillion.

While they note the task of moving toward an era beyond fossil fuels is Herculean, the authors conclude that it is feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II and that "the greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable."

"There is a bright side to this conclusion" said lead author James Hansen of Columbia University, "Following a path that leads to a lower CO2 amount, we can alleviate a number of problems that had begun to seem inevitable, such as increased storm intensities, expanded desertification, loss of coral reefs, and loss of mountain glaciers that supply fresh water to hundreds of millions of people."

In addition to Hansen and Pagani, authors of the paper are Robert Berner from Yale University; Makiko Sato and Pushker Kharecha from the NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute; David Beerling from the University of Sheffield, UK; Valerie Masson-Delmotte from CEA-CNRS-Universite de Versaille, France Maureen Raymo from Boston University; Dana Royer from Wesleyan University and James C. Zachos from the University of California at Santa Cruz.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081108155834.htm

 

[Phronesis]

A little acid rain might not be such a bad thing:
Climate Change, Acid Rain Could Be Good For Forests

The ice caps seem to returning to their old self:
1
2

At least part of it (or maybe most of it) is due to lower sunspot activity.
Sunspot activity

Sunspot activity and not CO2 atmospheric activity seems like a better indicator of global climate changes. 2008 seems to show a cooling trend all of a sudden.

 

[mercurial]

Scientists say peridotite rock can soak up CO2

NEW YORK, Nov. 10, 2008 (Reuters) — A rock found mostly in Oman can be harnessed to soak up the main greenhouse gas carbon dioxide at a rate that could help slow global warming, scientists say.

When carbon dioxide comes in contact with the rock, peridotite, the gas is converted into solid minerals such as calcite.

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre4a59ib-us-climate-rocks/

 

[BandwidthAddict]

Here is an interesting article.

I wonder if anyone still "knows" that global warming is "true" or do people just "believe"?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/19/nasa_giss_cockup_catalog/

I guess we are going to have to add some place for the new religion:

* Christianity
* Judaism
* Islam
* Scientology
* And now, new and improved, Global Wa.... er .. Climate Change (yes, that is what we will name it .. morons will never figure the difference *evil laugh*)

So far this year -

* Record low temps in SA
* Low temps world wide
* The ice melt this year less than last
* The "gain" in temperature for this period since the bruhaha started .. wiped out

Hopefully we will see some more sunspot activity .. the alternative is not so good

 

[Phronesis]

Lol,
Religious responses to the global warmi...er climate change observation possibly include:
1) Awesome, our green technologies have kicked in and look... lower CO2, lower temperatures
2) It is going to get really cold before it gets really hot. Just you wait you naysayers...
3) Blame it on the global economic slow down. Less burning of fuel, less CO2, globe cools. Yay.

I want my sunspot-filled summer so we can blame the warmi..er climate change on CO2 levels again . j/k...

 

[BandwidthAddict]

With the lack of sunspots, we are seeing the results:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...lly-heading-new-Ice-Age-claim-scientists.html
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LC427428.htm

Lets not forget just how seriously these people are taking global warming .. instead of teleconferencing to save CO2, they do this (2007):
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gassing_over_bali/

I don't actually mind this kind of thing .. it's bettering our knowledge of the world:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/nov/17/climate-change-study-to-end-soon/

Oh good .. things are not so bad as was thought .. Mother Earth (at least in Aussieland) is not emitting as much carbon as was thought .. Go Gaia:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/11/17/2421790.htm?site=science&topic=enviro

Will the Goracle become the next Climate Czar? Check out this map for US temp progression:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/11/as-planet-cools-obama-warms-to-hiring.html

I dig this stunt ... Seems so like them "folk" .. Lets heal the planet with some burnin:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...dsun/comments/gassiest_stunt_against_gas_yet/

Check out the costs in this article .. who is making the moolah .. notice how they are already putting get-out-of-jail-free-card signals (economic crisis):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2008111...81118174223;_ylt=AqOdSa1ODyaSAP5yWX5uDtzPOrgF

Of course, if you are serious about this stuff, then you have to read this blog .. it is dissecting Hansen's fraud:
http://www.climateaudit.org/

 

[Arthur]

Excuse me, but I'm a heretic. I'm emphatically not a member of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Church. Here's a delicious piece from today's Washington Times:

PRUDEN: The killer frost for global warming

Wesley Pruden, Editor Emeritus

Turn up the heat, somebody. The globe is freezing. Even Al Gore is looking for an extra blanket. Winter has barely come to the northern latitudes and already we've got bigger goosebumps than usual. So far the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports 63 record snowfalls in the United States, 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month. Only 44 Octobers over the past 114 years have been cooler than this last one.

The polar ice is accumulating faster than usual, and some of the experts now concede that the globe hasn't warmed since 1995. You may have noticed, in fact, that Al and his pals, having given up on the sun, no longer even warn of global warming. Now it's "climate change." The marketing men enlisted by Al and the doom criers to come up with a flexible "brand" took a cue from the country philosopher who observed, correctly, that "if you've got one foot in the fire and the other in a bucket of ice, on average you're warm." On average, "climate change" covers every possibility.

This is similar to the science practiced by Dr. James Hansen at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the source of much of the voodoo that Al Gore has been peddling since the doctor showed up at a Senate hearing in 1988 and told ghost stories that Al swallowed whole. Only last month Dr. Hansen's institute announced that October was the hottest on record, and then said "uh, never mind." The London Daily Telegraph calls this "a surreal blunder [that] raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming."

In this account, the institute had to make the humiliating climb-down after two leading skeptics of the global-warming scam, Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist, and Steve McIntyre, a Canadian computer analyst, discovered that temperature readings from September had been carried over and repeated for October.

We should sigh, shrug and give the scientists at NASA the benefit of the doubt that this was a mistake and not a deliberate howl at the moon. A spokesman for the institute explains that readings borrowed from Russia, which had been described as 10 degrees higher than normal for October, distorted the figures but, after all, the data had been obtained from others. So we should blame someone else.

This is the science we're expected to take on faith. The false figures - we must be generous and not say "faked" - were supplied by the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change. These are the most widely quoted readings, and consistently show higher temperatures than other "data sets." Would the United Nations lie? (No giggling, please.)

This sets a new standard for hubris, arrogance and haughty self-importance. Skeptics of the global-warming scam, even those with unquestioned academic and real-world credentials, are treated as ignorant pariahs by pundits, presidential candidates and other politicians who know better, or ought to.

This is not the first time, writes Christopher Booker in the Daily Telegraph, that Dr. Hansen's methodology has been sharply questioned. Two years ago, Messrs. Watts and McIntyre, the bloggers who caught the October fiasco, forced him to withdraw his published findings on surface temperatures in the United States, to correct his claim that the hottest decade of the 20th century was the 1990s. It was the 1930s, when the much-maligned sport utility vehicle was still a truck and Detroit made economical cars everybody wanted.

Man's notion that his science can realign the stars, adjust the orbit of planets and reorganize the universe leads him to say silly things and assert goofy claims. Saying silly things and asserting goofy claims is usually harmless as entertainment, so long as the claims are subjected to rigorous analysis and debate. But contrarian arguments about global warming, climate change and freezing heat are not tolerated by the scientists with an uneasy grip on the research money.

It's clear now that the earth has been cooling for the past decade, to the sorrow of the special pleaders and despite everything Al can do about it. The solar cycle peaked, the sun is quieter, the sunspots have faded and everybody but Al is cooling off.

Even the United Nations says so. The director of the U.N.'s panel on climate change concedes that nature has overwhelmed everything man can do and it might even be another decade before man can rally and the warming resumes. Until then, like it or not, nature rules the cosmos.