Climate Gate 2.00 : Shocking Corruption Revealed in Emails!

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by kn0wh0w

 

For me, my skepticism of climate science is driven by proposed policy to combat it. The notion that we could stop a global climate trend with taxation is ludicrous and suspicious to me.

Data does show that the climate is changing. But I seriously doubt that with an incomplete theory, that we can drive policy economically an socially, to change the outcome of what I believe is more a natural process than a man-made process. There does seem to be an anthropogenic impact on the climate but to what extend is unclear, and with political agendas driving so much of the scientific funding in this field it is going to be highly unlikely that we will get a clear picture that would be necessary to form policy around.


The fact that politicos in the US and around the world are aiming policy at something they don't understand says a lot about this issue and what it is really about in my opinion...Control.

If the Earth is to be warmer, we should instead be preparing to deliver more electricity to the public for air conditioning because you cannot stop the warming process of this huge planet any more than we can cause the planet to warm (or cool). Prepare to harvest crops in places where growing seasons are currently too short but now will be able to flood the world with excess food. This will cause a population explosion. Plant more forests because we'll need the lumber to build the homes for this population explosion. Think moves ahead in decades, don't just react as things become at the level of a crisis here and now.

Originally posted by tkwasny

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by kn0wh0w

 

For me, my skepticism of climate science is driven by proposed policy to combat it. The notion that we could stop a global climate trend with taxation is ludicrous and suspicious to me.

Data does show that the climate is changing. But I seriously doubt that with an incomplete theory, that we can drive policy economically an socially, to change the outcome of what I believe is more a natural process than a man-made process. There does seem to be an anthropogenic impact on the climate but to what extend is unclear, and with political agendas driving so much of the scientific funding in this field it is going to be highly unlikely that we will get a clear picture that would be necessary to form policy around.


The fact that politicos in the US and around the world are aiming policy at something they don't understand says a lot about this issue and what it is really about in my opinion...Control.

If the Earth is to be warmer, we should instead be preparing to deliver more electricity to the public for air conditioning because you cannot stop the warming process of this huge planet any more than we can cause the planet to warm (or cool). Prepare to harvest crops in places where growing seasons are currently too short but now will be able to flood the world with excess food. This will cause a population explosion. Plant more forests because we'll need the lumber to build the homes for this population explosion. Think moves ahead in decades, don't just react as things become at the level of a crisis here and now.

Obviously there will have to be massive adaptation, but the problem is that the climate will be changing so fast (compared to historically) that even when you think you know what to do and have gotten yourself set up, it changes again.

Agricultural productivity depends very heavily on local experience and knowledge of farmers, what to plant, when and where. And farmers get this from experience with a particular piece of soil. There's lots of infrastructure, especially relating to flood control systems which is based on long term local conditons. This will be made obsolete.

Prepare to harvest crops in places where growing seasons are currently too short but now will be able to flood the world with excess food.

Yes, Saskatchewan will benefit, but there are lots of other places, very important and feeding billions of people, which will be hurt.

And what about the places where agriculture will be collapsing? There are two critical problems
a) too hot
b) not enough water, or too much water all at once.

Remember that it was over 100 F in Dallas for something like 30-50 days in a row this summer---and that's 100 F of horrible humid Texan heat. There were crop deaths and substantial decreases in growth because nighttime temperatures were too high. I didn't know this but apparently that's quite important. And of course increased greenhouse effect will preferentially increase nighttime temperatures more than daytime (already observed, in fact, and demonstrates why it's not solar forcing causing climate change at the present).

About water: the best places have water frozen conveniently in mountains in winter, and then as it melts it is delivered nice and steady for the fertile growing season---for example one the most productive areas on the planet, California's central valley, gets its water from the Sierra Nevada snowpack. And yes global warming causes tempreatures at high altitudes to go up more than in the lowlands.

So you'll get massive destructive floods, but not enough saved up water from snowpack/glaciers.

Same problem, times 100, in India. India is already hot as hell in the summer---more heat will be a disaster.

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

Of course if the Sun reduces its output then it will be cooler than it would be otherwise, but yet that still does nothing about the greenhouse effect. All laws of physics stay working all the time.

reply to post by mbkennel

 

Ooh - that sounds very definitive doesn't it!, except the AGW case doesn't rest on the 'laws of physics' does it!.

Yes it does.

Instead it rests on the very small warming effect caused by man made CO2, being amplified by presumed and unverified, totally positive feedback mechanisms to create a runaway effect.

A couple of the 'unverified' mechanisms are pretty damn simple and verified:

a) water is a greenhouse gas too with a few week timescale in atmosphere instead of thousands of years. Hotter air takes in more water. This is plain old weather knowledge 100 years old. Why is it warmer at night when its humid or cloudy instead of dry and clear like a desert? (everybody knows desert nights are chilly).

b) icy tundra melts, stuff inside which used to be permanently frozen now decays and emits methane and CO2. Also methane hydrates on the sea floor.

There is of course the famous paleoclimate data which shows yes lagging CO2 (a few hundred years) after temperature---which is evidence for feedforwards (planet warms from orbital solar forcing which gives a small warming, greenhouse gases come out from ground/oceans and it gets warmer and warmer).

By the way, CO2 is responsible for only about half of human contribution to global warming. There are other gases which are more potent (per molecule) emitted, and in fact these are easier economically to control, though no one is as big a contribution as CO2.

It is further assumed that climate sensitivity is a linear function of temperature - when it is far more likely that it actually decreases with temp in a self governing system.

Have you been to Venus recently?

When is it far more likely that it decreases with temperature? And at what temperature difference does that start to happen? What are the physical mechanisms? How to they compare quantitatively to the feedforward mechanisms? What's the experimental evidence for them?

You need answers for these if you want scientists to agree---because that's what's there on mainstream climate modeling.

I agree that there is "some" eventual feedback mechanism that might happen, for instance climate like that 100 million years ago when the coal and oil we're burning (there were alligators in the arctic then) grow plants and algae in a huge green soup for millions of years and have the carbon fall to the bottom of the ocean and not be decayed by bacteria and continue for a long time. Of course humans are extinct in this scenario.
I've heard though that this might not even happen, that now, compared to then, the aerobic bacteria are more effective and would probably eat the plants better and release the CO2 back into the atmosphere, maybe fossil fuels were a one time shot. If we take all the fossil fuels and put them back in the atmosphere we get a climate like that when the fossil fuels were made. Very very very hot.

The real danger is that we are in fact headed for another ice-age!

What's the evidence for this, and on what timescale?

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

Know I know you are just a shill - you completely misrepresent what I say!

Monckton on sensitivity training at Durban

wattsupwiththat.com...

Take all the greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and keep the Earth’s albedo magically the same as today’s. How much cooler would it be? All are agreed that it would be around 33 Celsius degrees cooler. This is climate theory 101. So, how much radiative forcing causes the 33 C° warming that arises from the presence – as opposed to total absence – of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

The answer – again straight out of the usual suspects’ playbook – is around 100 Watts per square meter. Accordingly, the equilibrium system climate sensitivity parameter is 33/100 = 0.33 Celsius per Watt per square meter, after just about all temperature feedbacks have acted.

Multiply this key parameter by 3.7 Watts per square meter, which is the IPCC’s own value for the radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 concentration, and you get a warming of just 1.2 C° per CO2 doubling. But that is just one-third of the 3.3 C° the IPCC predicts. This theoretical value of 1.2 C° is remarkably robust: it uses the IPCC’s own data and methods, applied to the entire history of the atmosphere, to demonstrate just how low climate sensitivity really is.

When I pointed out this simple but powerful result to scientists recently at the Santa Fe climate conference organized by the Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of them said, “Ah, yes, but what evidence do you have that today’s climate exhibits the same sensitivity as the total system sensitivity?” The answer is that the world is now in a position to verify this theoretical result by measurement. In August this year, Dr. Blasing of the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center in the United States quietly published a bombshell.

Few noticed. His detailed estimate is that all the manmade greenhouse gases added to the air by us since 1750 have caused as much as 3 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing between them. From this 3 Watts per square meter, in line with IPCC data, we must be fair and deduct 1 Watt per square meter to allow for manmade climate influences that cause cooling, such as soot and other particulates that act as helpful little parasols shading us from the Sun and keeping us cooler than we should otherwise be.

How much warming did this manmade net 2 Watts per square meter of forcing cause? Around 0.8 Celsius of warming has occurred since 1750, of which – if the IPCC is right – 50-100% was attributable to us. So the equilibrium climate sensitivity parameter since 1750 (again, most of the temperature feedbacks that the IPCC wrongly imagines will amplify warming hugely will have acted by now) is 0.2-0.4 Celsius per Watt per square meter. Multiply that key parameter by 3.7 and the warming we can expect from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is just 0.75-1.5 Celsius.

Those estimates neatly bracket the equilibrium system sensitivity of 1.2 C° that we calculated earlier by well-established theory. So the sensitivity of the climate over the most recent quarter of the millennium is very much the same as the sensitivity of the climate throughout the past 4.5 billion years – at around one-third of the IPCC’s central estimate. Frankly, one Celsius degree of warming this century will simply not be worth worrying about. It will do far more good than harm. Not a cent should be spent trying to prevent it.

Blah blah blah. Lord Monckton is still full of it, but he's getting even better at making scientific-sounding arguments which are seemingly impressive, but of course there's a catch.

He's repeating the same mistake as in 2006. www.realclimate.org...


An actual scientist would redo the calculation and think about the problem again, but a propagandist doesn't because he is not trying to convince scientists.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
So wait...

Your entire point is that, since people are making money off of half-assed carbon-credit trading schemes (which were more/less CRAFTED by fossil fuel industry), that AGW is therefore a hoax? SERIOUSLY?? Because markets/Capitalism is perverting an issue into a business-as-usual profit-venture... the SCIENTISTS are somehow corrupt??

Totally weak.

lol. What is the overlap between carbon-credit traders and scientists who publish in peer-reviewed *real* journals?


If you want to do something about global warming for real from a scientific perspective, you might need to do things like

a) ban all mining of coal. Completely. With military force if necessary, like ending slavery.
b) crack down heavily on all non-CO2 greenhouse emissions like crazy.
c) build lots of nuclear plants to make up for the electricity generation.

Anyway, it's depressing because the denialists are getting what they want: emissions are following worse-than-worst-case-scenario curves.

Of course, we'll get the climate we deserve because the denialists won't get their fake laws of fake physics, we'll get the real thing.

Found this old thread while considering a new one... so I'm considering this an update, as found via TheAlexJonesChannel subscription:



The video description:

By Marc Morano -- Climate Depot
MSNBC, perhaps the most unlikely of news sources, reports on what may be seen as the official end of the man-made global warming fear movement.

MSNBC April 23, 2012: 'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock reverses himself: I was 'alarmist' about climate change & so was Gore! 'The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago'

Contrast Lovelock's 2012 skeptical climate views with his 2007 beliefs during the height of the man-made climate fear movement. [ Flashback 2007: Lovelock Predicts Global Warming Doom: 'Billions of us will die; few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in Arctic' ]

How fitting that a major organ of the man-made climate fear promotion, MSNBC, would deliver one of the final and most dramatic death knells to the climate movement. One of the founders of climate alarm bails out with help from the media that helped hype and propel the movement.

More MSNBC article excerpts: Lovelock pointed to Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and Tim Flannery's "The Weather Makers" as other examples of "alarmist" forecasts of the future..."The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books -- mine included -- because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time... it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added...Asked if he was now a climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: "It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I'm not a denier." He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role. "It (the sea) could make all the difference between a hot age and an ice age," he said. 'I made a mistake' As "an independent and a loner," he said he did not mind saying "All right, I made a mistake." He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding."

Climate Depot began reporting on Lovelock's conversion away from climate fears in 2010 as he began reconsidering the alleged 'settled science." See below for Climate Depot's reporting on the evolution of James Lovelock's climate views.
www.climatedepot.com...
www.infowars.com...
www.prisonplanet.tv...
twitter.com...#!/RealAlexJones
www.facebook.com...

why don't we ask the hundreds of physical oceanographers who do this for a living instead of a "gaia"ist?

In actual fact, the observations are following the predictions fairly well.

For instance, let's take a prediction from 1981 from a (now eminent and unfairly accused) actual physicist, James Hansen. This was published in what was then, and still remains, one of the top 2 journals in the world covering ALL science. (by the way, where were all the denialists in 1981? Fighting "tobacco causes cancer" alarmists?)

www.realclimate.org...

The prediction in 1981 underestimated the actually observed trend by about 30%.

Why was it good? Because a substantial amount of the fundamental physics was already known, and you can't argue around it. There are always effects and uncertainties, but the question is whether they change the basic picture to any substantial degree. So far, no.