|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 20, 2012 5:13:39 GMT
Happy Bday Sigurdur! Hope you had a nice day!
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 21, 2012 5:00:14 GMT
Without any research I wonder what the heat loss from a hurricane is and if that loss is included in the linked paper. Ever look at the ocean heat maps hurricane path after the hurricane has passed. Very dramatic. Then think of convection dumping that heat into the upper atmosphere and into space. Then think of .07 Wm-2. Think capture the dynamic. Not easy. So in my opinion maybe 0 stored. Did you learn nothing from my posts :-) ?? Per day for a 'typical hurricane':: Total energy released through cloud/rain formation: equivalent to 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity. Total kinetic energy (wind energy) generated: equivalent to about half the world-wide electrical generating capacity see www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 21, 2012 13:15:29 GMT
"Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming" "The Trenberth letter tells us that decarbonization of the world's economy would "drive decades of economic growth." This is not a scientific statement nor is there evidence it is true. A premature global-scale transition from hydrocarbon fuels would require massive government intervention to support the deployment of more expensive energy technology. If there were economic advantages to investing in technology that depends on taxpayer support, companies like Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Solar Millenium, SpectraWatt, Solyndra, Ener1 and the Renewable Energy Development Corporation would be prospering instead of filing for bankruptcy in only the past few months." "Turning to the letter of the president of the American Physical Society (APS), Robert Byer, we read, “The statement [on climate] does not declare, as the signatories of the letter [our op-ed] suggest, that the human contribution to climate change is incontrovertible.” This seems to suggest that APS does not in fact consider the science on this key question to be settled. Yet here is the critical paragraph from the statement that caused the resignation of Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever and many other long-time members of the APS: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” No reasonable person can read this and avoid the conclusion that APS is declaring the human impact “incontrovertible.” Otherwise there would be no logical link from “global warming” to the shrill call for mitigation." online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 22, 2012 1:45:34 GMT
Is there, anywhere, a list of former believers turned sceptics?
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 22, 2012 2:13:57 GMT
Ratty:
I can start the list.
1. Sigurdur.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 22, 2012 4:12:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 22, 2012 5:13:00 GMT
ratty, I am skeptical of many of the models and forecasts concerning AGW. I suspect there are a lot of factors and their feedbacks that are poorly understood.
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 23, 2012 15:50:21 GMT
Lindzen is more than likely right. "Is catastrophic global warming, like the Millenium Bug, a mistake?" (gratuitous pic)  "How to explain the procession of eminent opinion leaders – some even in our own Royal Society – who advance the tenets of catastrophic global warming? “It is science in the service of politics,” he said. If Lindzen is right, we will never be able to calculate the trillions that have been spent on the advice of “scientists in the service of politics”." blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/02/22/is-catastrophic-global-warming-like-the-millenium-bug-a-mistake/ |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 23, 2012 17:33:28 GMT
Lindzen is more than likely right. "Is catastrophic global warming, like the Millenium Bug, a mistake?" (gratuitous pic) "How to explain the procession of eminent opinion leaders – some even in our own Royal Society – who advance the tenets of catastrophic global warming? “It is science in the service of politics,” he said. If Lindzen is right, we will never be able to calculate the trillions that have been spent on the advice of “scientists in the service of politics”." blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/02/22/is-catastrophic-global-warming-like-the-millenium-bug-a-mistake/The thing is, they're already wrong! There is no "if". What they have done is formed an unfalsifiable hypothesis (a vague theory) and use fill-in-the-blank pseudoscience to explain their previous failed predictions. No matter what happens, it is consistent with AGW "theory". They must resort to "adjusting" data in their favor, funky statistics (Rahmstorf's latest for ex); they make it up as they go along. Feynman explains it in detail. AGW is largely junk science, a hoax encouraged by government handouts to keep the industrial complex afloat and bloated. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 23, 2012 18:19:04 GMT
Feynman explains it in detail. AGW is largely junk vague science, A very funny and interesting video. I have only ever seen the short version before. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 24, 2012 0:28:27 GMT
magellan: My Birthday was great. Family, cake, good conversation........what more could one ask for? |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 24, 2012 2:33:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by norpag on Feb 24, 2012 3:32:27 GMT
There is currently a difference in approach to climate science between the sceptical Baconian - empirical appraoch solidly based on data and the Platonic IPCC approach - based on theoretical assumptions built into climate models.The question arises from the recent Muller - BEST furore -What is the best metric for a global measure of and for discussion of global warming or cooling. For some years I have suggested in various web comments and on my blog that the Hadley Sea Surface Temperature data is the best metric for the following reasons . (Anyone can check this data for themselves - Google Hadley Cru -- scroll down to SST GL and check the annual numbers.) 1. Oceans cover about 70% of the surface. 2. Because of the thermal inertia of water – short term noise is smoothed out. 3. All the questions re UHI, changes in land use local topographic effects etc are simply sidestepped. 4. Perhaps most importantly – what we really need to measure is the enthalpy of the system – the land measurements do not capture this aspect because the relative humidity at the time of temperature measurement is ignored. In water the temperature changes are a good measure of relative enthalpy changes. 5. It is very clear that the most direct means to short term and decadal length predictions is through the study of the interactions of the atmospheric sytems ,ocean currents and temperature regimes – PDO ,ENSO. SOI AMO AO etc etc. and the SST is a major measure of these systems.Certainly the SST data has its own problems but these are much less than those of the land data. What does the SST data show? The 5 year moving SST temperature average shows that the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows an eight year global SST cooling trend since then .The data shows warming from 1900 - 1940 ,cooling from 1940 to about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose monotonically during this entire period.There has been no net warming since 1997 - 15 years with CO2 up 7.9% and no net warming. Anthropogenic CO2 has some effect but our knowledge of the natural drivers is still so poor that we cannot accurately estimate what the anthropogenic CO2 contribution is. Since 2003 CO2 has risen further and yet the global temperature trend is negative. This is obviously a short term on which to base predictions but all statistical analyses of particular time series must be interpreted in conjunction with other ongoing events and in the context of declining solar magnetic field strength and activity – to the extent of a possible Dalton or Maunder minimum and the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal a global 20 – 30 year cooling spell is more likely than a warming trend. It is clear that the IPCC models , on which AL Gore based his entire anti CO2 scare campaign ,have been wrongly framed. and their predictions have failed completely.This paradigm was never well founded ,but ,in recent years, the entire basis for the Climate and Temperature trends and predictions of dangerous warming in the 2007 IPCC Ar4 Summary for Policy Makers has been destroyed. First - this Summary is inconsistent with the AR4 WG1 Science section. It should be noted that the Summary was published before the WG1 report and the editors of the Summary , incredibly ,asked the authors of the Science report to make their reports conform to the Summary rather than the other way around. When this was not done the Science section was simply ignored.. I give one egregious example - there are many others.Most of the predicted disasters are based on climate models.Even the Modelers themselves say that they do not make predictions . The models produce projections or scenarios which are no more accurate than the assumptions,algorithms and data , often of poor quality,which were put into them. In reality they are no more than expensive drafting tools to produce power point slides to illustrate the ideas and prejudices of their creators. The IPCC science section AR4 WG1 section 8.6.4 deals with the reliability of the climate models .This IPCC science section on models itself concludes: "Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed" What could be clearer. The IPCC itself says that we don't even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't yet calculate the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway. Nevertheless this statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given "with high confidence." in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed. A key part of the AGW paradigm is that recent warming is unprecedented and can only be explained by anthropogenic CO2. This is the basic message of the iconic "hockey stick " However hundreds of published papers show that the Medieval warming period and the Roman climatic optimum were warmer than the present. The infamous "hide the decline " quote from the Climategate Emails is so important. not so much because of its effect on one graph but because it shows that the entire basis if dendrothermometry is highly suspect. A complete referenced discussion of the issues involved can be found in "The Hockey Stick Illusion - Climategate and the Corruption of science " by AW Montford. Temperature reconstructions based on tree ring proxies are a total waste of time and money and cannot be relied on. There is no evident empirical correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, In all cases CO2 changes follow temperature changes not vice versa.It has always been clear that the sun is the main climate driver. One new paper " Empirical Evidence for a Celestial origin of the Climate Oscillations and its implications "by Scafetta from Duke University casts new light on this. www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf Humidity, and natural CO2 levels are solar feedback effects not prime drivers. Recent experiments at CERN have shown the possible powerful influence of cosmic rays on clouds and climate. Solar Cycle 24 will peak in a year or two thus masking the cooling to some extent, but from 2014 on, the cooling trend will become so obvious that the IPCC will be unable to continue ignoring the real world - even now Hansen and Trenberth are desperately seeking ad hoc fixes to locate the missing heat. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 26, 2012 16:53:51 GMT
There is currently a difference in approach to climate science between the sceptical Baconian - empirical appraoch solidly based on data and the Platonic IPCC approach - based on theoretical assumptions built into climate models. The problem being that scientific method is actually based on both approaches. Observational empirical, followed by the hypothesizing then back to the observational empirical to falsify the hypothesizing. However, once this method moves into the realm of politics and 'results based research' - having one's expensively computer generated hypothesis falsified is an anathema. Politicians, unfortunately, like lawyers are less concerned about the validity of their position than winning the argument. Politicians support the 'results based research' where it supports their argument and only when it does so. This leads to the tortuous use of statistics and clever wordings to support the political benefactors result requirements regardless of the outcome of the research or the funding cash cow will die. As an aside, this is an area of the 'tenure' argument that appears to have been missed. Tenure is normally seen as supporting academic freedom as the professor with tenure is secure in his job even if his research results go against 'authority'. However, for the purity of academia the same reasoning should not allow any extra rewards above normal tenure remunerations for results strongly in favor of 'authority'. That is a tenured position should not be threatened with the stick nor induced by the carrot to alter research results. The outcome "if they are wrong" is already becoming apparent. The death of the cachet of 'scientist' when compared to lawyer or politician or even used car salesman. This is already apparent in many areas such as blogs and comments to items in electronic news sites where disparaging comments are made to almost all research items now. On more serious blogs it is very common for people to state that they are engineers NOT scientists; presumably because engineers are seen to be more reliable and trustworthy. Along comes a winner of the Genius Award and the 'Chairman of the Ethics Committee for the AGU' and proves all these people right - moral of the story - "never trust a scientist". This is totally unfair to a majority of scientists - but it will be one of the effects of 'what if they are wrong'. It is now being more commonly forecast that there could be a drop in temperatures for several years and if people continue to die of cold in the dark due to expensive energy supplies in 'first world' countries like Germany and UK; then expect an abrupt loss of political support as the politicians look for someone to blame (it can't be them as they make no mistakes). I would expect the media will do a similar seamless volte-face. The climate 'scientists' are now astride a tiger and are fearful of the prospect of being forced to dismount. I think that FOIA 2011 is/was driven by the what if they are wrong - and probably considers that they are: " FOIA 2011 -- Background and Context ///
"Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day."
"Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes."
"One dollar can save a life" -- the opposite must also be true.
"Poverty is a death sentence."
"Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels."
Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline.
If it took you 2 minutes to read this - in that time ~ 24 children died of hunger or related illnesses - as FOIA states "One dollar can save a life" - Why are we spending millions of dollars subsidizing windmills, solar power and electric cars when every one of those millions of dollars could save a life?We are doing it because people like the ex-Chairman of the AGU Ethics committee have persuaded politicians that is where they should spend the money (with some for themselves too of course), as its more important than saving those starving or dying of the cold. There are some on this board that feel that way too. What if they are wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 26, 2012 17:04:45 GMT
nautonnier
You have nailed it. Spot on the money!
|
|
