Global Warming/Climate Change 2

[STEVE G]

Yes, and this site has figures on land ice melt:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... 20208.html

[Frank Hovis]

Steve - Thanks for that link, looks like interesting reading.

[MrPlum]

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/ ... -made.html

'An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2'.

Steve?


Original paper found here... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 01658?v=s5

[STEVE G]

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/ ... -made.html

'An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2'.

Steve?


Original paper found here... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 01658?v=s5

I haven't paid $40 to read the paper but this site has some comment on it:

http://troyca.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/ ... mperature/

"Clearly, the HSS12 “DIFF12” method is not able to diagnose the long-term cause vs. effect. Rather, it is quite easy for a small CO2 response to temperature, particularly one which will have no long-term impact, to create results in the DIFF12 graphs that make them appear (incorrectly) to provide great explanative power. In other words, the method chosen in the paper does not support its conclusions."

[MrPlum]

The latest contribution from the 'Nay' camp's anti-AGW standard-bearer, 'Lord' Monkton... http://www.hangthebankers.com/the-6-qua ... mate-scam/

Not sure where he got the "$6 quadrillion" from but the article does remind us of some of the issues.

1. The capture of the 'once-pure' environmental movement by the hard left

2. Climate Science has been politicized

3. Science these days is a monopsony ( ). There is only one paying customer: the State. Scientists increasingly produce the results their political paymasters want rather than seeking after truth.

4. The Climate Change Act 2008, brought in by Ed the Red, is 'the biggest tax increase in human history' (is it?)

5. Scientists have a moral responsibility to use their craft for good, not for ill, and an intellectual obligation to adhere rigorously to the scientific method. (he obviously feels they aren't doing that)

6. Wild exaggerations of the supposed threat.

7. There has been 15 years without any global warming at all. 'Climate models and the policies based on them should be adjusted to take account of the failure of temperature to rise as predicted.' (If the former is true, has this been done yet?)

8. 'A dozen other world leaders told him privately that they agreed with him but did not dare say anything publicly.' (World leaders afraid? You have to ask 'Why?')

9. '...it is 48 times more expensive to try to make global warming go away than to let it happen and enjoy the sunshine.' (otherwise known as 'Armaggedon').

My calculations differ slightly. 48 x 0 = 0

[MrPlum]

This constant stream of scientific posts apparently moving us to conclude AGW is real, misses the point that there is still no 'Smoking Gun' and unlikely to be.

This is a link to a presentation given, last month, by Czech President, Vaclav Klaus... http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/3165

The mainstream media appear to have blanked it. You can make up your own mind as to why.

'The Manmade Contribution to Global Warming Is Not a Planetary Emergency'
Magistral Lecture to the World Federation of Scientists, Erice, Sicily, August, 2012. Václav Klaus, President, Czech Republic

Some extracts...

'The role of scientists is not in speculating on the probabilities of events that cannot be directly measured and tested, nor in promoting a pseudoscientific “precautionary principle”, nor in engaging in activities which are the proper function not of scientists but of risk managers.'

'...my reading both of the available data and of conflicting scientific arguments and theories allows me to argue that it is not global warming caused by human activity that is threatening us.'

'The real problem is not climate or global warming, but the Global Warming Doctrine and its consequences.'

'My reading of this new incarnation of environmentalism can be summarized in the following way:

1. It starts with the claim that there is an undisputed and undisputable, empirically confirmed, statistically significant, global, not local, warming;

2. It continues with the argument that the time series of global temperature exhibit a growing trend which dominates their cyclical and random components. This trend is supposed to be non-linear, perhaps exponential;

3. This trend is declared to be dangerous for the people (in the eyes of “soft” environmentalists) or for the planet (by “deep” environmentalists);

4. This temperature growth is postulated as a solely or chiefly man-made phenomenon attributable to growing emissions of CO2 from industrial activity and the use of fossil fuels;

5. The sensitivity of global temperature to even small variations in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is supposed to be very high;

6. The GWD exponents promise us a solution: the ongoing temperature increase can be reversed by radical reduction in CO2 emissions[3];

7. They also know how to bring about their solution: they want to organize emissions reduction by means of the institutions of “global governance”. They forget to tell us that this is not possible without undermining democracy, the independence of individual countries, human freedom, economic prosperity and a chance to eliminate poverty in the world;

8. They rely on the undefined and undefinable “precautionary principle”. Cost-benefit analysis is not relevant to them.

'I do not believe in any one of these eight articles of faith and I am not alone. There are many natural scientists and also social scientists, especially economists, who do not believe in them either. The problem is that most genuine scientists do science and are not willing to discuss this doctrine in the public space.

An additional problem is that natural scientists and social scientists do not talk to each other. They only come into contact with self-proclaimed interdisciplinarists who are very often mere dealers in second-hand ideas. Social scientists, in particular, tend to be silenced by seemingly authoritative statements that “the science is settled”, while natural scientists assume a priori that there is nothing “hard” in the social sciences.

'The Global Warming Doctrine is not based on science. Accordingly, scientific debate itself cannot bring it into disrepute. The course of the world-wide global warming debate more or less confirms this elementary methodological argument. Serious scientific research continues to bring us new pieces of knowledge almost on a daily basis (Thanks to Steve ), but it has not brought and will not bring us any decisive breakthrough in the public debate on this topic.

The world has not warmed for the last 15 years, but that is too short to shatter the whole carefully built edifice of the global warming doctrine. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that some of us have been arguing that a century in climatology is too short to prove the ongoing global warming as a new long-term trend.

Discussing technicalities in more and more depth will not help us, because the supporters of the global warming doctrine are not interested in them. We are not dealing with people who are authentically interested in science, in objective truth, in identifying the causes of incremental changes in temperature. For them, the temperature data are just an instrument in their plans to change the world, to suppress human freedom, to bring people back to underdevelopment. Their ideas are the ideas of ideologues, not of scientists or climatologists.

'If somebody wants to reduce CO2 emissions, he must either expect a revolution in economic efficiency (which determines emissions intensity) or start organizing a world-wide economic decline.

The GWD adherents should explain to the people worldwide that to achieve their plans economic decline is inevitable.

As someone who personally experienced central planning and attempts to organize the whole of society from one place, I feel obliged to warn against the arguments and ambitions of the believers in the global warming doctrine. Their arguments and ambitions are very similar to those we used to live with decades ago under Communism. The arrogance with which the global-warming alarmists and their fellow-travellers in politics and the media present their views is appalling. They want to suppress the market, they want to control the whole of society, they want to dictate prices (directly or indirectly by means of various interventions, including taxes), they want to “use” the market. I agree with Ray Evans that we experience the “Orwellian use of the words ‘market’ and ‘price’ to persuade people to accept a control over their lives”

'I agree with many serious climatologists who say that the warming we may expect will be very small. I agree with Bob Carter and other scientists that it is difficult “to prove that the human effect on the climate can be measured” because “this effect is lost in the variability of natural climate changes”[9]. Provided that there are no irrational attempts to mitigate the human effect on global temperature, the economic losses connected with the warming we may expect will be very small. The loss generated as a result of the completely useless fight against global warming would be far greater.

[MrPlum]

One of the arguments against the steps needed to mitigate the effects of AGW is that it is not possible to do it cost-effectively, if we can do it at all. Without BRIC countries participation, all the schemes being implemented by already insolvent governments are just excuses to take more money from the people to shore up or further enrich a private banking monopoly.

U.S. Senate hearings concluded that '...even if cap and trade had been enacted, it would not have changed the temperature by a tenth of a degree, virtually anywhere in the world,'

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162- ... 01465.html

So my question to Warmies is, are you prepared to see economic development reduced, national sovereignty undermined and the citizens of this planet taxed, controlled and criminalized, to address an exaggerated 'crisis', touted by political ideologues, founded on what is STILL only speculation?

And I am not talking about the problems of environmental pollution, which I am all for addressing.

[STEVE G]

So my question to Warmies is, are you prepared to see economic development reduced, national sovereignty undermined and the citizens of this planet taxed, controlled and criminalized, to address an exaggerated 'crisis', touted by political ideologues, founded on what is STILL only speculation?

Actually economic development is being hampered at the moment by increasing food prices due to climatic problems and high oil prices due to the fact that the energy sector hasn't looked at alternatives to the fact that the world is running out of cheaply produced oil.
That wouldn't be happening if the problem had been taken seriously back in the eighties. All that other stuff is not required, we just need to change energy sources.
I don't think the North Pole melting can be classed as speculation and much of the politics against change is driven by the desire of the energy sector to make as much money as possible before the inevitable happens.

[MrPlum]

Actually economic development is being hampered at the moment by increasing food prices due to climatic problems

Where you see climate, I see the den of thieves on Wall St... http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/05/30/ ... ll-street/

Wall Street and the price of food
...it evidently wasn't enough that investment bankers and their ilk on Wall Street crashed our credit system and contributed to the artificial creation and subsequent destruction of trillions of dollars of home equity. They've now taken it upon themselves to manipulate and control the world's supply of food.

All that other stuff is not required

Glad to read it. Unfortunately, it seems to come with the package. The environmental movement needs to get the 'soft totalitarianism' Trojan Horse off its back.

, we just need to change energy sources.

You've probably dealt with this previously but what about our plastics, cosmetics, medications, tupperware, cleaning agents, etc.. etc..?

Perhaps a new topic called 'Viable New Energy Sources' will separate and end arguments about AGW? Anything new on the energy front or has the financial crisis scuppered it?

I don't think the North Pole melting can be classed as speculation and much of the politics against change is driven by the desire of the energy sector to make as much money as possible before the inevitable happens.

They are surely wealthy and powerful enough to invest in, buy up, or snuff out any potential competitor?

[Arcadian]

Has the melting ice problem had any effect on sea levels yet?

[sargeant]

They've now taken it upon themselves to manipulate and control the world's supply of food.

So its wall street that caused all the floods and droughts and subsequent crop failures

"The Bastards"

[MrPlum]

So its wall street that caused all the floods and droughts and subsequent crop failures

Quite obviously not. Weather conditions are just one element of recent food price rises, which the article makes clear.

[sargeant]

Supply and demand decides food prices above all else and wall street cant do jack to change the facts

With a continuous unabating rise in population even if food production stayed constant prices will rise

throw into that a slack handfull of floods a bucket full of drought and prices of food will rise even faster

and it is the weather in most instances that decide on crop production its been that way forever all over the world

It is the rapid changes in climate that are giving rise to more floods and droughts

and no ammount of carbon tax is going to change diddly squat one corn cob shared between ten people equals starvation, even if the ten people paid a million each in carbon tax

[STEVE G]

Sea ice, climate, food production, and an unknown unknown
http://www.straight.com/article-769621/ ... wn-unknown

[STEVE G]

At least Mitt Romney admits that there is a problem:

The Top American Science Questions: 2012
http://www.sciencedebate.org/debate12/

"I am not a scientist myself, but my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences. However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue — on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk — and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community.

Ultimately, the science is an input to the public policy decision; it does not dictate a particular policy response. President Obama has taken the view that if global warming is occurring, the American response must be to slash carbon dioxide emissions by imposing enormous costs on the U.S. economy. First he tried a massive cap-and-trade bill that would have devastated U.S. industry. When that approach was rejected by Congress, he declared his intention to pursue the same course on his own and proceeded through his EPA to impose rules that will bankrupt the coal industry.

Nowhere along the way has the President indicated what actual results his approach would achieve — and with good reason. The reality is that the problem is called Global Warming, not America Warming. China long ago passed America as the leading emitter of greenhouse gases. Developed world emissions have leveled off while developing world emissions continue to grow rapidly, and developing nations have no interest in accepting economic constraints to change that dynamic. In this context, the primary effect of unilateral action by the U.S. to impose costs on its own emissions will be to shift industrial activity overseas to nations whose industrial processes are more emissions-intensive and less environmentally friendly. That result may make environmentalists feel better, but it will not better the environment.

So I oppose steps like a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system that would handicap the American economy and drive manufacturing jobs away, all without actually addressing the underlying problem. Economic growth and technological innovation, not economy-suppressing regulation, is the key to environmental protection in the long run. So I believe we should pursue what I call a “No Regrets” policy — steps that will lead to lower emissions, but that will benefit America regardless of whether the risks of global warming materialize and regardless of whether other nations take effective action.

For instance, I support robust government funding for research on efficient, low-emissions technologies that will maintain American leadership in emerging industries. And I believe the federal government must significantly streamline the regulatory framework for the deployment of new energy technologies, including a new wave of investment in nuclear power. These steps will strengthen American industry, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and produce the economically-attractive technologies that developing nations must have access to if they are to achieve the reductions in their own emissions that will be necessary to address what is a global issue."
Mitt Romney, Sep. 4th 2012