Warming Climate Is Changing Life On A Global Scale

Terra Daily ^ | May 19, 2008 | Staff Writers

[RightWhale]

"It was a real challenge to separate the influence of human-caused temperature increases from natural climate variations

Not to mention identifying actual temperature increases in the past decade. 'March of the Pine Forest' by Walt Disney.

[Entrepreneur]

You're going to be hearing a lot about this report. The press is already all over it. It is touted and proof that humans cause global warming. What proof? Well Dr Rosenzweig, with virtually unlimited government money from James Hansen's GISS (once it was the people's GISS, but now it's Hansen's) assembled a whole lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest things are getting warmer.

Let's take that at face value (which I don't). How do we know things are getting warmer because my wife drives an SUV and we cherish a carbon rich lifestyle? Rosenzweig tells us so.

Science by anecdote is not science. It's public relations. It's Algore's computer animations (the obvious ones and the faked). It's using government money to get a bunch of people to cherry pick events and claim the abundance of incidents is overwhelming evidence.

If AGW skeptics had similar resources, I suspect we could assemble a similar report showing overwhelming evidence of global cooling or anything else we wanted. This is not neutral science. This is advocacy from a person with a definite point of view and bias.

What kind of bias? How about the fact that Cynthia Rosenzweig gave $2,300.00 to Hillary Clinton. Her husband split $2,000.00 between Hillary and Obama. Sure, that's her personal business. Lot's of New Yorkers give thousands of dollars to Democrats. It doesn't affect her "science."

Hey, if you buy that last one, I've got an AGW theory to sell you. Okay, she's got an ideology. Is she qualified?

When Oregon state climatologist, George Taylor was fired for skepticism about the theory of anthropogenic global warming, Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski said, "He's not a climatologist." Uh, he does hold the job title. Well, he did.

Similarly, Canada's Dr Tim Ball is criticized by AGW crusaders as not being a climatologist. He responds, "That's absolute rubbish. I have a PhD in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology from the University of London (England), Queen Mary College."

It's a favorite tactic of the left to challenge the credentials of anyone who counters the AGW orthodoxy. Yet, the new heroine, Dr Rosenzweig, is not a climatologist." She is an agronomist.

When she strays out of her field, she's been known to get herself in trouble. She's one of the proponents of the spread of malaria and other diseases because of global warming. This has been soundly refuted. However, I bet she continues to promote it.

This may be a nice person, but she is an AGW radical who protested that the most dire IPCC Report wasn't dire enough (Click here and scroll down the yellow text box). BTW, the most recent reports dropped or softened many of the most dire projections.

At best, her work should be greeted suspiciously. She's got a clear point of view, is operating outside her field, has strongly promoted the most radical AGW views, and has been proven wrong before (of course, that's true for all of us - but most of us don't claim infallability).

Someday we need to elect a real conservative who will shut down GISS.

This would all be harmless if the politicials weren't using it as a means to control industrial production, tax us into poverty, enrich themselves, pick and choose winning companies and industries, and generally create a form of totalitarian enviromarxism. Unfortunately, all three candidates standing are proponents and there's not a dime's bit of difference between them.

If we're going to get this stuff shoved down out throats (and we are), I'd rather a Democrat did it so we can rally the troops and oppose it, rather than split the party.

[palmer]

These include wastage of glaciers on all continents;... The researchers say it is unlikely that any force but human-influenced climate change could be driving all this;

Europe's biggest glacier shrinks

"It really is not a human-induced situation," he said. "This glacier is receding from the coast because it advanced to the coast during what is known as the Little Ice Age.

[ChinaThreat]

A couple of points for you.

1. The climatic models used by the IPCC and the severity of their outcomes range wildly. These estimates range anywhere from .15 deg. cel to 10 deg. cel. Gore and Hansen and others looking for money like the higher end because it causes more fear.

2. The IPCC’s lowest model of .17 deg. cel. is just about in line with actual measured increase over the last 3 decades and no where near the modeled projections they toss around in the media and in their abstracts.

3. The IPCCs models use insane predictors to drive many of their models. For example, using the IPCC’s numbers to determine future GHG output, South Africans should have a per capita income four times greater than Americans by the end of this century. Oh yeah, that also includes North Korea, Libya, Algeria and Argentina. They use grossly distorted projections of global population and world GDP. In addition, there are many noted inconsistencies in their modeled data and known data. For example, in their proxy samples of tree rings, they estimate that 1cm of growth is equal to a certain avg. temp. When known data sets (trees that we can observe) are measured, their proxy sample standards do not even line up with their real world measurements.

4. Just for kicks, here is a direct quote from Hockey Stick co-creator Phil Jones; “We have a 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should i make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”. He was responding to an inquiring Warwick Hughes. I think this shows the NEW Scientific Method.

5.The simple problem with general circulation models is the same general problem with all models. They are simply a function of the hypothesis programmed into them. When ALL of the IPCC’s models are backwards tested, they fail miserably.

I could go on and on with problems in this pseudo-scientific approach, but it seems that once your drinking the KOOL-aid, its too late.

[cogitator]

Global cooling - wanna bet?

The Global Cooling Bet -- Part 2

[cogitator]

assembled a whole lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest things are getting warmer

The evidence is not "anecdotal". The compilation is of peer-reviewed research studies published in scientific journals.

Just ain't natural

"Rosenzweig, based in New York, and colleagues around the world analyzed some 80 studies that document changing aspects of natural processes: when gingko trees bloom in Japan, how much glaciers melt in the Alps, when frogs start their springtime calls in New York and so on. Each study offered at least 20 years of data collected between 1970 and 2004. In all, the mountain of data comprised around 29,500 data series that each revealed a significant change. (Twenty years of melt measurements from two separate glaciers counted as two data series.)"

[cogitator]

Is there a difference between “human-induced” and “human-augmented”? I’d think so.

[cogitator]

As noted, the IPCC considers a range of scenarios. Thank you for supporting my point.

Here's a point in return.

2. The IPCC’s lowest model of .17 deg. cel. is just about in line with actual measured increase over the last 3 decades and no where near the modeled projections they toss around in the media and in their abstracts.

I assume you mean 0.17 deg C per decade. If this minimum trend continues for the rest of the century, that would be 3x the warming of the 20th century, for a total warming of 2.4 C over 200 years.

[cogitator]

and the physics of the greenhouse gas theory has been refuted by geophysicists.

Do tell.

[21twelve]

Am I missing something? They talk about all the studies and showing it to be warmer, and Ginko trees blooming earlier. Great, its warmer. But then in mid-paragraph they say something to the effect of “proof that it is caused by man.”

I can grant them “proof that it is warmer in that area”. But where is the proof that it is manmade?

[cogitator]

The actual statement from the article: “The researchers say it is unlikely that any force but human-influenced climate change could be driving all this; factors like deforestation or natural climate variations could not explain it.”

[devere]

The author of this paper resigned from NASA in order to publish it:

http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

Here’s a commentary by another physicist:

” I have read
http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
a couple of times. The conclusions are bombshells. This thread
discusses the impossibility of CO2 induced global warming.

“This figure [figure 13] shows that the Earth has a controlled
greenhouse effect with a
stable [global average flux optical depth tau] = 1.87,
[normalized greenhouse factor] = 0.33,
and the [first derivative of the atmospheric greenhouse function] =
0.185

As long as F0 [the total absorbed shortwave radiation (from the sun)]
+ P0 [total thermal energy from the planetary interior to the surface-
atmosphere system] flux term is constant and the system is in
radiative balance with a global average radiative equilibrium source
function profile, GLOBAL WARMING LOOKS IMPOSSIBLE [emphasis mine].

Long term changes in the planetary radiative balance is governed by
the F0+P0=SU(3/5+2TA/5) , OLR = SU f and F0+P0=OLR equations. The
system is locked to the [equilibrium flux optical depth] because of
the energy minimum principle prefers the radiative equilibrium
configuration ([hemispheric spectral flux optical depth] <[equilibrium
flux optical depth] ) but the energy conservation principle constrains
the available thermal energy ([equilibrium flux optical depth]>
[hemispheric spectral flux optical depth]). The problem for example
with the highly publicized simple ‘bucket analogy’ of greenhouse
effect is the ignorance of the energy minimum principle (Committee on
Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, et al., 2005).” Page 29.

By “global warming looks impossible” in the above quote, it is clear
by the context that Dr. Miskolczi means CO2 induced global warming.
The earth’s surface can get hotter if either
(1) the energy received by the earth from the sun or
(2) the total thermal energy from the earth’s interior
increase.

“For example, a hypothetical CO2 doubling will increase the optical
depth (of the global average profile) by 0.0241, and the related
increase in the surface temperature will be 0.24 K. The related change
in the OLR [Outgoing Long wave Radiation leaving the earth]
corresponds to -0.3 K cooling. This may be compared to the 0.3 K and
-1.2 K observed temperature changes of the surface and lower
stratosphere between 1979 and 2004 in Karl et al., (2006).

From the extrapolation of the ‘Keeling Curve’ the estimated increase
in the average CO2 concentration during this time period is about 22%,
(National Research Council of the National Academies, 2004). Comparing
the magnitude of the expected change in the surface temperature we
conclude, that the observed increase in the CO2 concentration must not
be the primary reason of the global warming.” Page 22.

This is physics, not opinion.

—Mike Jr”

There are other papers of a similar nature which show the physical impossibility of runaway global warming. If I find the time I will post more.

[Octar]

A claim which has zero basis by any reasonable scientific method.

Absolutely. It's easier for people to fall for some dumb fad as long as they see others doing it. Most of these clowns have no understanding of science whatever, particularly true of the various Global Warming Movement leaders.

Al Gore wearing the tallest dunce cap.

[21twelve]

Thank you for the acurate quote. Do they go on to say WHY it is unlikely that it is any force but human-influenced?

[Amendment10]

Given that the oceans cover 66-70% of the earth's surface, it's no surprise that ocean temperatures are regarded as a major indicator of global warming activity. So the slight decrease in ocean temperatures indicated by the Argo System oceanic temperature probes over the last several years reflects on the politically correct foundation of AGW alarmism, in my opinion.

Argo System ocean temperature probes
Argo System web site

[devere]

Here’s another one for you:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf

“Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 11 Sep 2007 (this version, v3))

Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.”

[palmer]

The equations shown in (80) are clearly wrong as the author points out. But they are not done in any literature I have ever seen. The paper is full of red herrings like that, basically trying to prove that since some red herring is wrong, the whole approach is wrong. That isn’t the case, the earth blackbody calculation is valid although only approximate.

[devere]

“The paper is full of red herrings like that”

Oh really? what are the other ones?

[palmer]

page 12: "[greenhouse effect attributed] 20 percent to the 0.03 volume percent CO2". It's 10 percent due to CO2 (removing CO2 leaves 90% of the GH effect)

In the whole document, "greenhouse effect" is misused. They are correct that it is not a "glass house" effect, but they measure a greenhouse (car) regardless. The primary difference is that the glass is one thin sheet whereas the GH gasses are the whole atmosphere. If the interior of the car glass were 71C and the exterior of the glass were 31C, then it would be a useful analogy, but it's obviously not.

page 38: "Furthermore it is implied that the spectral transmissivity of a medium determines its thermal conductivity straightforwardly" That is not implied by the previous quotation, which, although poorly worded, implies that the entire thickness of the atmosphere is the glass. There is no air trapped inside of glass that has specified thermal conductivity. There is only air with conductivity, convection, etc. The quoted author (Moller) does not imply otherwise.

This is followed on pp 39 and 40 by a bunch of poorly worded descriptions of the GH effect. For a better description see here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/langswitch_lang/sw

[palmer]

page 59: the diagram shows top and bottom of atmosphere radiation budgets. The numbers are approximate but not inaccurate or physically impossible to determine. For point 1, they are not intensities, they are fluxes. For point 2, the sidewards fluxes are irrelevant. Points 3 and 4 on the next page are irrelevant, the arrows are approximately representations of steady state fluxes, no more, no less.