Climate Change Consensus?

[Moon The Loon]

I've posted this before, and I'll post it again. This is a really good book which mostly tells the story about the history of science; the discoveries, but more importantly, the mistakes. It's about how egos and blind stubbornness resulted in some pretty dumb thing being passed on as science, with the majority being in the wrong, and the minority being right on many occasions.  Mob mentality is as much a problem in the science world as anywhere else.

http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly...g/dp/0767908171

In 1950, a "character" (as labelled by every credible scientist in the world) named Immanuel Velikovsky posited amongst other things that the moon was formed after a cataclysmic collision of the earth with some other body (he suggested what we now call the planet Venus). The ejecta from that impact formed a disk around the earth which eventually coalesced into our present day moon. Years after the moon landings, when a lot of the basaltic rocks brought back showed amazing relationship to the floor geology of the Pacific Ocean.

Regardless, as with modern CRM, it doesn't matter who's got the right answer but that someone has the right answer and is able to win others over using knowledge, logic, common sense, good scientific method and from time to time, the ability to think outside the box.

[Canus Chinookus]

If all scientists used the 'scientific method' properly, there'd be far fewer arguments out there. Keep the damn politicians out of it, including the activists, and let the good science figure it out.

Once again, we have far worse problems than CO2 to worry about, and it sickens me that the minority who screams the loudest gets the attention.

[Guest rattler]

and just to throw something else into the mix.

Walter E. Williams

Environmentalists' Wild Predictions

Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

[Canus Chinookus]

BAM!

[Guest woxof]

When the warnings start getting shrill.....take your own warning. In the last few months we have heard that ocean levels are not only going to increase, but much faster than earlier predicted. Only urgent action can save us from disaster.

The most shrill statements I have heard yet. From Gwynne Dyer in several podcasts that that were posted on this forum. The mass starvation scenario was in it along with nuclear war scenario.

Read here....

http://www.cubanow.net/pages/loader.php?sec=12&t=2&item=6799

"“We may commit our planet to a very long-term sea level rise measured in meters.”

Not only would a three-foot rise literally flood many cities, it would also have ripple effects that include food shortages, political conflicts and disease epidemics, as countries struggle to deal with millions of internally displaced people.

“Whether there will be environmental refugees is not a question of ‘if’ but ‘when, where and how we deal with it,’ ”

"In a worst-case scenario, melting ice sheets and glaciers in the Arctic region could cause severe chilling in the United States and Europe, because the influx of fresh water into the ocean could disrupt or slow thermohaline circulation."

I know, I know, just a small group but this stuff was in the papers, I remember reading it. The average person glances at it and it just confirms in their mind that we must do something...anything, whatever it takes.

[Steam Driven]

If you visit drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures-- the site of a scientist who, for 30 years, has used satellites to monitor global temperature -- you will see that as of the end of June, the Earth is no warmer than it was in 1979. Over the past three decades, the Earth's temperature has been above average some of the time and below average some of the time. Now it is right on the 30-year average.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...ate-claims.aspx

[chockalicious]

[Steam Driven]

I put my graph against your graph... Who's right? My scientist says your scientist is wrong...

The science is not settled. We should not be throwing money at a problem that may not exist, or changed by humans...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

[chockalicious]

As IFG pointed out far more eloquently than I, nobody is going to change anyone's mind. I do find your graph to have too small of a sample size, to me that is bad science.

[13820]

" Deviation in basis points 1951-80 "

According to your graph, it seems that anything after 1980 is an extrapolation. That's bad science.

[Guest rattler]

As IFG pointed out far more eloquently than I, nobody is going to change anyone's mind. I do find your graph to have too small of a sample size, to me that is bad science.

An interesting article from the same source as your chart. Sometimes words are better than pictures

http://wws.princeton.edu/news/oppenheimer_0209/

[Pivot]

Noctilucent clouds:

Has anyone else seen them lately? This week has been the most impressive show I've ever seen. Got some great pictures over Vancouver from 39,000'. They were directly above us.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/19feb_nlc.htm

"One reason for the recent spread of noctilucent clouds might be global warming. "Extreme cold is required to form ice in a dry environment like the mesosphere," says Thomas. Ironically, global warming helps. While greenhouse gases warm Earth's surface, they actually lower temperatures in the high atmosphere. Thomas notes that noctilucent clouds were first spotted during the Industrial Revolution--a time of rising greenhouse gas production."

Could this be a way of naturally blocking out the sun as the atmosphere warms?

[Moon The Loon]

Noctilucent clouds:

Has anyone else seen them lately? This week has been the most impressive show I've ever seen. Got some great pictures over Vancouver from 39,000'. They were directly above us.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/19feb_nlc.htm

"One reason for the recent spread of noctilucent clouds might be global warming. "Extreme cold is required to form ice in a dry environment like the mesosphere," says Thomas. Ironically, global warming helps. While greenhouse gases warm Earth's surface, they actually lower temperatures in the high atmosphere. Thomas notes that noctilucent clouds were first spotted during the Industrial Revolution--a time of rising greenhouse gas production."

Could this be a way of naturally blocking out the sun as the atmosphere warms?

Used to see them regularly over North Atlantic on eastbound trips, usually (and typically) 1-2 hours before local sunrise. 150-300,000' altitude.

Far out!

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/19feb_nlc.htm

[Guest woxof]

It all fits in with Professor Plimer's belief that humans thrive in warmer times. So enjoy global warming. Then again, has anybody seen more than one 30°C day this year? I believe Suzuki...a new Little Ice Age is coming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8150415.stm

Are the deserts getting greener?

It has been assumed that global warming would cause an expansion of the world's deserts, but now some scientists are predicting a contrary scenario in which water and life slowly reclaim these arid places.

They think vast, dry regions like the Sahara might soon begin shrinking.

The evidence is limited and definitive conclusions are impossible to reach but recent satellite pictures of North Africa seem to show areas of the Sahara in retreat.

It could be that an increase in rainfall has caused this effect.

Farouk el-Baz, director of the Centre for Remote Sensing at Boston University, believes the Sahara is experiencing a shift from dryer to wetter conditions.

map

"It's not greening yet. But the desert expands and shrinks in relation to the amount of energy that is received by the Earth from the Sun, and this over many thousands of years," Mr el-Baz told the BBC World Service.

"The heating of the Earth would result in more evaporation of the oceans, in turn resulting in more rainfall."

See Link at top of post for more....

[CD]

NOAA: Global Ocean Surface Temperature Warmest on Record for June

July 17, 2009

The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for June, breaking the previous high mark set in 2005, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Additionally, the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for June was second-warmest on record. The global records began in 1880.

NOAA

Melting ice threatens polar life

By Cameron Dueck on the Bering Sea , Financial Times, 15 Jul 2009

The Canadian Arctic is facing another year of open water with the summer break-up of sea ice ahead of schedule in many key parts of the northern archipelago.

The early break-up of ice underlines the growing impact of climate change in the Poles where temperatures have risen much more rapidly than in the rest of the world.

As a result, September 2007 was the first time in living memory the entire Northwest Passage was open water from east to west. Despite slightly more ice, a record six private yachts transited the historic waterway last year, and this year's traffic could beat that number.

Loss of Arctic sea ice threatens wildlife such as polar bears, seals and walruses that use the ice as a platform for hunting, mating and migration. Further south, where Alaskan fishermen ply the Bering Sea in search of fish and crabs, they wonder if disappearing ice and warmer temperatures can be blamed for their change in fortunes.

Article here...

[Guest woxof]

Yes...even with these cooling temperatures, it will take quite a while for the ocean to turn around. We all learned about bodies of water holding on to heat or taking a while to warm up with each spring and fall.

New set of skis this fall for me.

[Moon The Loon]

"The early break-up of ice underlines the growing impact of climate change in the Poles where temperatures have risen much more rapidly than in the rest of the world."

This statement sums up in a nutshell the stupidity of many environmentalists' thinking. The Arctic Ocean is not warming and the ice is not melting because of a warmer atmosphere. The Arctic Ocean is warming due to the massive influx of waters from the warmer Atlantic Ocean. The ice is melting from underneath. THE ATMOSPHERE IS WARMING DUE TO CONTACT WITH THE NOW WARMER WATER.

They really do have it backwards.

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF18/1885.html

From the article:

While surprisingly warm water from the Atlantic is entering the Arctic Ocean—which probably adds to the loss of sea ice by melting it from beneath—unusually warm water from the Pacific is also invading the Arctic Ocean through the Bering Strait, said Mike Steele of the University of Washington.

“In 2007, north of Alaska and eastern Siberia, the Arctic Ocean was 3.5 degrees Celsius warmer than the historical average and 1.5 degrees warmer than the historical maximum,” Steele said, adding that waters off Alaska were especially warm. “The Bering Strait and Chukchi Sea are warming most.”

Because ice reflects about 85 percent of the sun’s radiation and open water only reflects 7 percent, 2007’s low ice led to the ocean absorbing much more of the sun’s heat. Perovich calculated that the Arctic Ocean in September 2007 absorbed 300 percent more solar energy than it did in 1980. He said that the sun was the real culprit in the loss of sea ice this year, and that the warm pulses of Atlantic and Pacific water also eroded the ice pack.

[Steam Driven]

"Planet Earth is on a roll!

GPP is way up. NPP is way up. To the surprise of those who have been bearish on the planet, the data shows global production has been steadily climbing to record levels, ones not seen since these measurements began.

GPP is Gross Primary Production, a measure of the daily output of the global biosphere -- the amount of new plant matter on land. NPP is Net Primary Production, an annual tally of the globe’s production. Biomass is booming. The planet is the greenest it’s been in decades, perhaps in centuries.

Until the 1980s, ecologists had no way to systematically track growth in plant matter in every corner of the Earth — the best they could do was analyze small plots of one-tenth of a hectare or less. The notion of continuously tracking global production to discover the true state of the globe’s biota was not even considered.

Then, in the 1980s, ecologists realized that satellites could track production, and enlisted NASA to collect the data. For the first time, ecologists did not need to rely on rough estimates or anecdotal evidence of the health of the ecology: They could objectively measure the land’s output and soon did — on a daily basis and down to the last kilometre.

The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.

In Praise of Carbon Dioxide

[Moon The Loon]

And now, this:

(Oh yeah, aviation related comment at end of article - “We actually decided to do this by electronics (conference calls) so we wouldn't have anybody flying around. That was our first decision,” she said.)

The psychology of climate change

Anne-Marie Tobin

Toronto — The Canadian Press

Last updated on Friday, Aug. 07, 2009 04:31PM EDT

Psychology has important contributions to make in understanding the causes and consequences of climate change, and how people respond by “going green” or ignoring the threat, says a task force report released Friday.

The report, which took about a year to compile and was unveiled at a conference of the American Psychological Association, urges the profession to play a greater role in limiting the effects of climate change, or global changes in temperature and precipitation.

Janet Swim, a psychology professor at Pennsylvania State University and chair of the task force, said we need to look at the reasons people aren't acting to understand how to get them to act.

“People are worried about this; they're afraid of it. And how do people deal with fear? Some people deal with fear by denying it. Some people deal with fear by engaging, doing social activism – and so that's a good way to do it,” she said in an interview before presenting the hefty 200-plus-page report.

“Some people deal with fear by being obsessed with it, and that's not good.”

The lone member of the study group from Canada, Robert Gifford of the University of Victoria, rhymed off a number of reasons for inaction, including the fact that when there's a little bit of uncertainty, people tend to hesitate or not act.

[moeman]

Just finished reading State of Fear by Michael Crichton. Really interesting book.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ou...ntalfuture.html

[Azure]

I've been a fan of Crichton for years, read most of his books, after hearing of his death I haven't been able to crack open the book "Next" because I really don't want to believe his voice is gone.

My husband has read it twice already, and say's it's very cautionary in genetics. Some day I will read it, right now, I want to leave it 'till I need it.

[Guest woxof]

The psychology of climate change

Janet Swim, a psychology professor at Pennsylvania State University and chair of the task force, said we need to look at the reasons people aren't acting to understand how to get them to act.

“People are worried about this; they're afraid of it. And how do people deal with fear? Some people deal with fear by denying it. Some people deal with fear by engaging, doing social activism – and so that's a good way to do it,” she said in an interview before presenting the hefty 200-plus-page report.

Maybe Janet should realize reality. People are tired of ridiculous predictions.

Remember when four hurricanes hit Florida in one season a few years ago. It had been predicted for a quiet season. So of course the forecasters predicted mayhem for the next year which turned out to be relatively quiet.

Then there is this summer(which is just like last summer in terms of predictions and reality). I quote....

"After an exceptionally cold and snowy winter, Canadians from coast to coast can expect yet another hot, sweaty summer, a new long-range forecast from Environment Canada suggests.

If the forecast for the month of June, July and August turns out to be correct, it would be the 19th summer of the last 25 to feature higher than average temperatures, Environment Canada senior climatologist David Phillips said Wednesday.

whether it's climate change, whether it's cyclical, whatever it is, it's a reality that our summers are warmer than our ancestors put up with," Phillips said."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/05/...r-forecast.html

Yeah right Mr. Phillips, if you(Canada's face for meteorology) can't predict accurately three months in advance, am I really going to believe these 50-100 year predictions of nightmare scenarios.

And guess what....Britain had a hot, dry 'BBQ summer' predicted as they suffer through another cold, soggy one.

Prediction:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/30/w...mer-uk-forecast

Reality:

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/08/10/3...er-is-a-washout

[Guest woxof]

If they can't predict an upcoming summer, can we really believe the nightmare scenario predictions?

BRITAINS PROMISED 'BARBECUE SUMMER' IS A WASHOUT

Mon Aug 10, 2009

It's the phrase that haunts Britain's weather forecasters "barbecue summer". It was used in April by the country's chief weather forecasting body when it predicted the summer would be warm and sunny. After a soggy July, Britons are miffed. Meteorologists have been forced to defend their science and their bonuses. The government-funded Met Office has paid more than 1 million pounds ($1.7 million) in annual bonuses to staffers for meeting targets, including the accuracy of forecasts.

"That was for last year," Met Office spokeswoman Sarah Holland said Monday.

The Met Office's April forecast said there was a 65 percent chance the summer would be warmer and sunnier than average.

"Odds on for a barbecue summer," it said in an ill-advised phrase that was repeated endlessly by the media.

Britain suffered through miserable summers in 2007 and 2008, so predictions that this year would be drier were greeted with joy.

At first, the signs were good. June's Wimbledon tennis tournament took place under sunny skies.

But soon afterward it started to rain. More than 5.5 inches (14 centimeters) fell in July, double the monthly average.

Two weeks ago, the Met Office revised its forecast — August will see average or above-average rainfall. Rather defensively, the agency insisted that "at no time did the Met Office state that summer 2009 would be hot and dry throughout or forecast a 'scorcher.'"

"July wasn't as nice as we'd hoped," Holland conceded. "But June was a very nice month — and we've just had a nice weekend as well."

But Daily Telegraph columnist Benedict Brogan scoffed on his blog that one senior forecaster had said he felt "in his bones" that the weather would improve in September.

"The Met Office gets about 83 million pounds ($138 million) a year from you and me," wrote Brogan. "We're paying 83 million pounds for bone-based weather detection?"

In London — overcast Monday, with a chance of showers — opinion about the weather ranged from disappointment to resignation.

"I'm absolutely gutted," said Scott Bishop, 32, an Australian software engineer. "I flew in from Australia for five days, but we had more sun in Melbourne in the middle of winter."

John McAndy, 72, a retiree from notoriously rainy Manchester in northern England, was more philosophical.

"Whoever is silly enough to go on a summer holiday to England is asking for it, really," he said.

[Moon The Loon]

FINALLY: Something Suzuki can sink his teeth into. Lotsa protein in bugs

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nation...article1248756/

The invasion of the fruit flies

Following the end of the garbage strike, kitchens across Toronto have been taken over by the quick-breeding bugs

Jill Colvin

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Last updated on Wednesday, Aug. 12, 2009 06:38AM EDT

.When Rami Posner comes down to his Toronto kitchen in the morning and nudges the toaster or an unwashed plate, he awakens the sleeping masses: hundreds of fruit flies that begin to swirl and buzz.

“It's unbelievable,” he said, disgusted by the number of flies that now join him for breakfast and have made his family's home their own. “This year it's extraordinary.”

Back in the summer of 2001, clouds of aphids swarmed the city. Now, it seems, it's the fruit flies' turn.

Pest control experts say the city workers strike is to blame for the fruit fly boom.

Mitch Trimble, a research scientist with Agriculture and Agri-food Canada said that torn garbage bags full of decomposing organic material are the perfect breeding ground for the flies, who lay their eggs in rotting food.

But once the strike ended, he said, these new armies went on a mission to find new places to breed.

Their search has ended in kitchens, backyard composts, and gardens throughout the city.

[Canus Chinookus]

WOXOF nailed it. As soon as they can accurately predict weather more than a month in advance, I'll start to believe these climate models they're using.