NASA’s 1971 Warning: ‘New Ice Age Coming’
Excerpt: NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting “court jesters,” appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years. “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming,” blares the headline of the July 9, 1971, article, which cautions readers that the world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts.” The scientist was S.I. Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen’s at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus. The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress, says that “in the next 50 years” — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in a buildup of “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070919/NATION02/109190067
NASA Recalculates hottest year in U.S. Yet Again: 1934 & 1998 Declared Tied Now
Excerpt: On Sept 15, Jerry Brennan observed that the NASA U.S. temperature history had changed and that 1998 was now co-leader atop the U.S. leaderboard. By this time, we’d figured out exactly what Hansen had done: they’d switched from using the SHAP version – which had been what they’d used for the past decade or so – to the FILNET version. The impact at Detroit Lakes was relatively large – which was why we’d noticed it, but in the network as a whole the impact of the change was to increase the trend slightly – enough obviously to make a difference between 1934 and 1998 – even though this supposedly was of no interest to anyone.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/17/nasa-s-hansen-playing-enron-accounting-games-climate-data
Antarctic Ice Grows to Record Level according to U. Of Illinois Polar Research Group
Excerpt: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 – New historic SH sea ice maximum and NH sea ice minimum – The Southern Hemisphere sea ice area has broken the previous maximum of 16.03 million sq. km and is currently at 16.26 million sq. km. This represents an increase of about 1.4% above the previous SH ice area record high. The observed sea ice record in the Southern Hemisphere (1979-present) is not as long as the Northern Hemisphere. Prior to the satellite era, direct observations of the SH sea ice edge were sporadic.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Say what? Polar Research Group now says ‘glitch’ caused false Antarctic record growth
Excerpt: Correction: we had previously reported that there had been a new SH historic maximum ice area. Unfortunately, we found a small glitch in our software. The timeseries have now been corrected and are showing that we are very close to, but not yet, a new historic maximum sea ice area for the Southern Hemisphere.
Flashback: Stephen Hawking Warns Earth’s Temps May Reach 250 Degrees C! in DiCaprio’s “The 11th Hour”
Excerpt: Stephen Hawking, the esteemed physicist and author, most vividly describes the direness of the situation: “We don’t know where the global warming will stop,” he explains, “but the worst-case scenario is that Earth would become like its sister planet, Venus, with a temperature of 250 [degrees] centigrade, and raining sulfuric acid. The human race could not survive in those conditions.”
http://campusprogress.org/soundvision/1847/the-11th-hours-ticking-clock
Laurie David Admits to “Error” in kid’s Global Warming Book
Excerpt: Laurie David, writing in her Huffington Post column, defends her new left-wing kid’s book, The Down to Earth Guide to Global Warming. The Hollywood producer turned children’s author is attacking a recent study for catching that a graph used as in her book mislabeled CO2 and temperature in an advantageous way. < > The error that SPPI caught is not minor. I have read David’s book, and she and Cami Gordon do not make much of an effort to prove that mankind’s activities are causing global warming, or that the current trend of temperature change is abnormal when compared to prior cycles. Instead, she takes this for granted and offers a passing reference to a graph with CO2 atmospheric concentration and temperature (p. 18) as proof that economic activity threatens to wipe out penguins and polar bears. < > Of course, since David has previously stated that the goal of her book is to manipulate children, we shouldn’t be surprised that the entire second half is comprised of nothing but tips like this. http://conservativepublisher.blogspot.com/2007/09/laurie-davids-weak-defense-of-her.html
Flashback: Laurie David to Kids: ‘We want you to grow up to be activists’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david/to-our-three-daughters_b_48293.html
Polar Bear Extinction Fears Debunked by Arctic Biologist
Excerpt: Fears that two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will die off in the next 50 years are overblown, says Mitchell Taylor, the Government of Nunavut’s director of wildlife research. “I think it’s naïve and presumptuous,” Taylor said of the report, released by U.S. Geological Survey on Friday, which warns that many of the world’s polar bears will die as sea ice vanishes due to a warming climate. < > But Taylor says that’s not the case. He points to Davis Strait , one of the southern-most roaming grounds of polar bears. According to the USGS, Davis Strait ought to be among the first places where polar bears will starve due to shrinking seasonal sea ice, which scientists say will deprive the bears of a vital platform to hunt seals. Yet “Davis Strait is crawling with polar bears,” Taylor said. “It’s not safe to camp there. They’re fat. The mothers have cubs. The cubs are in good shape.” < > The Government of Nunavut is conducting a study of the Davis Strait bear population. Results of the study won’t be released until 2008, but Taylor says it appears there are some 3,000 bears in an area – a big jump from the current estimate of about 850 bears. “That’s not theory. That’s not based on a model. That’s observation of reality,” he says. < > Taylor characterizes much of the public discussion over, as one headline has called it, “the appalling fate of the polar bear,” as “hysteria.” Taylor admits he does not see eye to eye with many other polar bear biologist, many of whom have expressed concern over whether polar bears will survive in a warmer climate. “Unlike all the others, I live in the north. My friends and neighbours are Nunavummiut,” he said. “I’m talking to people about polar bears all the time.”
http://www.nunatsiaq.com/news/nunavut/70914_498.html
Arctic Expert Debunks Man-made Global Warming Fears
(Note: Physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the former director of both University of Alaska Fairbanks ’ Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center who has twice been named “1000 Most Cited Scientists”, )
Excerpt: In fact, IPCC scientists do not understand the causes of the rapid increase of temperature from 1910 to 1945; or the decrease from 1945 to 1975, when CO2 levels were rising. Without understanding these recent changes, it is premature for the IPCC to jump to the conclusion that CO2 is the main cause of the last 30 years of global warming. Many people claim scientists proved the greenhouse effect with models run on supercomputers. But a supercomputer is not a crystal ball. Scientists merely enter observed (or expected) CO2 amounts into a computer and, using an algorithm, a projection emerges. No computer can accurately represent such a gigantic system as the Earth with all its unknown processes, such as the causes of the medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age. Therefore, no supercomputer, no matter how powerful, is able to prove definitively a simplistic hypothesis that says the greenhouse effect is responsible for warming. Most people, including scientists who specialize in climatology, are not aware of this weakness. In fact, the whole science of climate change based on supercomputers and algorithmic models is still in its infancy. A supercomputer cannot provide an approximate estimate of the temperature in 2050 or 2100 because scientists are not able to instruct it with all the the unknown processes that may be at play. Any conclusions drawn from such results — which may be seen as nothing more than an academic exercise — cannot and should not serve as hard facts on which to base major international policies.
http://mobile2.wsj.com/beta2/htmlsite/html_article.php?id=1&CALL_URL=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118954539363624201.html?
Meteorologist Craig James Debunks claims on Northwest Passage
The headline in this press release from the European Space Agency reads “Satellites witness lowest Arctic ice coverage in history”. In history! That sounds like a long time. However, when you read the article you find “history” only goes back to 28 years, to 1979. That is when satellites began monitoring Arctic Sea ice. The article also says “the Northwest Passage – a long-sought short cut between Europe and Asia that has been historically impassable.” I guess these people flunked history class. It has been open several times in history, without ice breakers. The first known successful navigation by ship was in 1905.
http://blogs.woodtv.com/?cat=11
Kyoto projects harm ozone layer: U.N. official
Excerpt: The biggest emissions-cutting projects under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have directly contributed to an increase in the production of gases that destroy the ozone layer, a senior U.N. official says. In addition, evidence suggests that the same projects, in developing countries, have deliberately raised their emissions of greenhouse gases only to destroy these and therefore claim more carbon credits, said Stanford University ‘s Michael Wara.
http://www.reuters.com/article/email/idUSL137011320070813?sp=true
Waste at Starbucks: Coating on coffee cups puts lid on recycling
Excerpt: Starbucks goes through roughly 2.3 billion paper cups a year and touts its national award for using cups made of 10 percent recycled material. The sleeves on the cups even plead, “Help us help the planet.” But don’t be confused. Starbucks promotes recycling on its cups, but the cups themselves aren’t recyclable here or in most other cities nationwide. “Well, they tricked me,” said Nicole Mejias, 22, a self-described Starbucks freak. “I immediately associate recycling with Starbucks because of their cups. That’s so hypocritical. I would have never guessed” that the cups weren’t easily recyclable. The reason: The plastic coating that keeps the cup from leaking also prevents it from being recycled with other paper products. That could be overcome, but it would cost more. Anything can be recycled, but “The system is not designed to take the individual Starbucks cups,” said Steve Sargent, director of recycling for Rumpke Recycling, Columbus ‘ largest recycler.
Waste Management, North America ‘s largest recycler, won’t take the cups, either. But many employees have been telling customers otherwise. They say their Seattle-based employer never made the situation clear.
“I totally thought the cups were recyclable. I think almost everyone did,” said Melanie O’Brien, an Otterbein College student studying environmental initiatives who has worked at Starbucks.
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/09/17/starbucks.ART_ART_09-17-07_A1_IF7U38O.html?sid=101
Gore charges $25,000 per person for meet-and-greet in Australia
Excerpt: Mr Gore made his comments after reporters were asked to leave the lunch venue. Despite the cost, lunch in the 700-seat room at the Sydney Convention Centre was a sell-out, as is tomorrow’s event in Melbourne . VIP packages, which included a spot close to Mr Gore and a meet-and-greet with him, cost $25,000. < > “It’s [the Arctic ] melting 10 times faster than previously recorded. Experts are now saying that if we don’t act with urgency, the entire ice cap could be completely gone in less than 23 years.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/paying-dearly-to-hear-gores-climate-story/2007/09/20/1189881602765.html
Cap-and-Trade Could Cost Average Family $10,800 in Lost Income
Excerpt: A cap-and-trade scheme for controlling greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) would impose significant economic costs on the U.S. economy and is not a sound policy response to current concerns about global warming, says renown economist Arthur Laffer in a new study released today. “Dr. Laffer’s analysis is another death knell for the cap-and-trade approach to addressing concerns over carbon dioxide emissions,” said Steven Milloy, executive director of the Free Enterprise Education Institute (FEEI), the nonprofit group sponsoring the study. “The Department of Energy, Congressional Budget Office and, now, Dr. Laffer have all concluded that cap- and-trade would be disastrous for the U.S. economy,” added Milloy.
http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-17-2007/0004664103&EDATE=
Climate change as an excuse to ‘tax the [bleep] out of us’
Excerpt: Christopher Alleva On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal featured a discussion with Michael O’Leary, CEO of low fare Irish airline, Ryanair. Portrayed as kind of a swashbuckler, O’Leary offered up an interesting array of comments on the airline industry and the regulatory environment, but he saved up his most scathing attacks for the new climate change taxes with which Britain is hitting the airlines. His profanity-laced tirade regarding these taxes is right on the money, literally! Mention airlines and carbon dioxide in the same sentence, and he begins peppering his language with four-letter words. Earlier this year, before becoming Britain ‘s prime minister, Gordon Brown raised taxes on air travel to and from the U.K. The then-Treasury chief’s stated purpose was fighting climate change. Mr. O’Leary, whose airline serves more than a dozen British airports, demurs: “He just raised taxes on airlines. It has [bleep]-all to do with climate change! We’ve written several letters . . . to the Treasury, asking what the money’s going to be spent on. We still haven’t gotten a reply.” They can’t reply because that money went straight to the general fund to pay for pensions and the national health system! O’Leary wasn’t done yet, laying bare, the whole global warming business for the fraud that it is. “…the problem with all this environmental claptrap . . . it’s a convenient excuse for politicians to just start taxing people. Some of these guilt-laden, middle-class liberals think it’s somehow good: ‘Oh, that’s my contribution to the environment.’ It’s not. You’re just being robbed–it’s just highway [bleeping] robbery.” He observes that passenger airlines are responsible for only 2% of carbon dioxide emissions world-wide: “It’s less than marine transport, and yet I don’t see anyone [saying], you know, ‘Let’s tax the [bleep] out of the ferries.’ ”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/09/climate_change_as_an_excuse_to.html
Greenhouse gas mandates burden poor
Excerpt: the Edison Power Research Institute issued a report that provided an economic analysis of California ‘s climate initiatives — a prototype of the one by which Florida is now modeled. The EPRI says cumulative costs to the California economy, just to meet its 2020 targets, could range from a hefty $104 billion to $367 billion and lead to a future of severe electricity shortages in the state. Put another way, the policy would cost every California household a staggering $31,900, or about two-thirds of one year’s median income for all residents. This would even be worse for blacks and Hispanics, where the costs would be about 90 percent of one year’s household income. The EPRI further states that poorer households in California would bear a much larger burden relative to their income than would wealthier households. While all consumers would face persistently higher energy and energy-induced prices, the impact of these cost-of-living increases is far heavier on families earning $30,000 than on families earning more than $1 million a year. For the record, only 7 percent of California ‘s population is African-American, as compared with nearly 16 percent in Florida — and most Florida residents who are older than 65 live on fixed incomes. These are, sadly, the people who are often most susceptible to the economic harm these climate change policies would most assuredly spawn.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-green18forumnbsep18,0,6651714.story
Wacky weather may bring summer snow to Sierra Nevada
Excerpt: Snow? In the summer? It’s possible this week in the Sierra Nevada , just days before fall officially arrives.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_6936099?source=rss&nclick_check=1
What’s the carbon footprint of a potato?
Excerpt: Walkers Crisps is the first firm to put carbon footprint figures on its products, with nine more companies set to follow. How are these figures calculated? On taking a food item off a supermarket shelf, consumers can instantly read in detail the impact it will have on the body. But what about the effect on the planet?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7002450.stm
McDonald’s waste to power buildings
Excerpt: Buildings such as hospitals and theatres will be powered by rubbish from McDonald’s restaurants in a new pilot scheme. Eleven fast-food restaurants in Sheffield, Rotherham and Barnsley, South Yorkshire , will take part in the initiative, which will turn waste into electricity and heating for 130 buildings in the area.The scheme will save each restaurant from sending 100 tonnes of refuse to landfill each year and could be rolled out across the country if successful.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/mcdonalds+waste+to+power+buildings/819372
Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted
Excerpt: Statistically speaking, science suffers from an excess of significance. Overeager researchers often tinker too much with the statistical variables of their analysis to coax any meaningful insight from their data sets. “People are messing around with the data to find anything that seems significant, to show they have found something that is new and unusual,” Dr. Ioannidis said. In the U. S. , research is a $55-billion-a-year enterprise that stakes its credibility on the reliability of evidence and the work of Dr. Ioannidis strikes a raw nerve. In fact, his 2005 essay “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” remains the most downloaded technical paper that the journal PLoS Medicine has ever published. < > Findings that have been refuted can linger in the scientific literature for years to be cited unwittingly by other researchers, compounding the errors.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118972683557627104.html?mod=hps_us_editors_picks
Reuters: Wooly Mammoth Dung Speeds Global Warming
Excerpt: But Zimov, a scientist who for almost 30 years has studied climate change in Russia ‘s Arctic , believes that as this organic matter becomes exposed to the air it will accelerate global warming faster than even some of the most pessimistic forecasts. “This will lead to a type of global warming which will be impossible to stop,” he said. < > A United Nations report in June said there was at yet no sign of widespread melting of permafrost that could stoke global warming, but noted the potential threat. So much gas to spew, so little time.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2007/09/17/reuters-wooly-mammoth-dung-speeds-global-warming
Stupidity will kill us more surely than global warming.
Excerpt: Miss Earth Australia Contestants: So, we could smile to read contestant Snezana declare that “Salinisation (sic) of land is one of the major environemtal (sic) crises facing Australia “, and Kirra warn that “the biggest problem in our enviroment (sic) today is our lack of water”. At worst we’d have wondered how badly we teach English as Angelique demanded help for an “environmnet” in danger, and Natalia wept for an “enviornment (sic) that sustains us”. How cute, these earnest bikini babes, so keen to save something they cannot even spell.
But how scary, too, that many of these contestants want to save this thing they cannot spell from a threat they cannot understand. You see, someone – a few of the girls dobbed in Al Gore – has filled their pretty heads with such wild fears of global warming that poor Amanda now wails that “the human race will eventually become extinct”. Scared silly, like so many children now, by professional panic merchants, it seems there’s nothing these girls won’t now blame on global warming; even tsunamis caused by earthquakes. Christine, for instance, says she’s been worried about global warming “from when the tsunami happened in Thailand back in December 2004”. “Hey! Me too,” squeals Georgina . <>
And I ask again: Who really is making a bigger fool of themselves over global warming; these harmless beauty contestants or our politicians
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22442206-5000117,00.html
Chill Pill: Combat global warming? There are better things we can do for the Earth. (By Pete DuPont)
Excerpt: The National Center for Policy Analysis’s new Global Warming Primer (www.ncpa.org/globalwarming/) shows that over the past 400,000 years, “the Earth’s temperature has consistently risen and fallen hundreds of years prior to increases and declines in CO2 levels” (emphasis added). For example, about half of the global warming increases since the mid-1800s occurred before greenhouse gas emissions began their significant increases after the 1950s, and then temperatures declined well into the 1970s when CO2 levels were increasing. < > Whereas 2,000 people died in the United Kingdom in that heat wave, last year the BBC reported that deaths caused by cold weather in England and Wales were about 25,000 each winter, and 47,000 a year, in the winters of 1998 to 2000. Similarly, in Helsinki , Finland , 55 people die each year from heat and 1,655 from cold.
http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110010626
LA Times Goofs on Math
Here’s what Monday’s editorial claimed:
“A 100-square-mile area of Nevada , if equipped with solar devices, could supply the U.S. with all the power it needs, according to the Energy Department.”
Note: Oops: The difference between “100-square-mile” and “100-mile-square” is massive. It’s the difference between 100 square miles—and 10,000 square miles. Keep in mind, the entire state of Nevada is roughly 110,000 square miles.
LA Times Issues Correction:
Excerpt: An editorial Monday on renewable energy said that a “100-square-mile” area of Nevada , if equipped with solar devices, could meet all of the United States ‘ power needs. It should have said a “100-mile-square” area.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-correx20sep20,0,2360507.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail
Colorado Springs Gazette Cites EPW Reports
Excerpt: The only disasters caused by global warming exist in contrived computer models so unreliable they can’t replicate yesterday’s weather, let alone the next century’s temperatures. Almost daily, new evidence is offered to refute the claims of global warming alarmists.
“An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analysis and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming ‘bites the dust,’ and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be ‘falling apart,’ ” according to U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.
http://www.gazette.com/opinion/warming_27477___article.html/global_trucks.html
One More Reason to Distrust Global Warming Predictions
Excerpt: Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Robert Lee Hotz cautioned us that alarming sloppiness in statistical studies is all too common. He cited a study by Tufts University professor John Ioannidis: “The hotter the field of research the more likely its published findings should be viewed skeptically, he determined.” No one was even attempting to measure Global Mean Temperature (GMT) during the 1880s. The GMT climate record is a statistical re-construction primarily based on modern data, which itself has been shown recently to be subject to systematic error in need of correction.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/one_more_reason_to_distrust_gl.html
New Pacific Research Institute Report Reviews the History of Environmental Alarmism and Its Policy Impact
Excerpt: “A major challenge in developing appropriate responses to legitimate problems is that alarmism catches people’s attention and draws them in,” said Dr. Kaleita. “Alarmism is given more weight than it deserves, as policy makers attempt to appease their constituency and the media.” Examples of poor and self-contradictory policy choices in California include: Taxpayer money spent on a lawsuit against nearly the entire automobile industry in North America to seek damages that have not yet occurred. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard recently promulgated by the governor of California to promote the use of ethanol in the state’s fuel supply. Ethanol reduces fuel efficiency, which means drivers will need to burn more fuel to go the same distance. San Francisco ’s ban on the use of plastic bags in city businesses. In reality, the manufacture of paper bags releases more greenhouse gases than the manufacture of plastic bags.
http://www.pacificresearch.org/publications/id.3301/pub_detail.asp
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
He worked in the same area as Hansen? That’s almost the same as if Hansen himself had made the claim.
Isn’t it?
Did anyone else work in the same department at that time? I think we should try the guilt by association trick against all them as well.
Yes, Stephen Schneider, another who has built his career on global warming, had a paper published in 1971 with I Rasool “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”.
Their conclusion? Industrial aerosols could trigger a new ice age!
“We are indebted to Dr. Hansen for making these
Mie scattering calculations for us, for suggesting the use of the two-stream approximation, and for checking the fluxes obtained by the two-stream approximation against some exact solutions (which agree to within about
5 percent) to the multiple scattering problem.”
Footnote 16 from the above article. (Undoubtedly the one referred to in the lead post).
Hansen was asked to do some calculations, so he did. They drew the conclusions they could from their research. It has since been demonstrated that particle pollution does in fact cool the world. The much discussed dip in temperatures after the 40’s to the 70’s was due to particle pollution. Scientists doing what they usually do, research and find things out.
SJT wrote:
“The much discussed dip in temperatures after the 40’s to the 70’s was due to particle pollution.”
Please explain why the southern hemisphere cooled more then the northern hemisphere when the vast majority of the “particle pollution” was in the northern hemisphere.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Sorry, the aerosols/particle pollution excuse for 1940’s to 1970’s cooling has now fallen flat on it’s face. Recent research suggests that aerosols can also warm, depending on altitude – remember ‘Asian Brown Clouds.’ Plus a very recent GRL paper suggests that aerosols fell only 3% globally since the 1980’s. Then there is the Tsonis ‘Climate Shifts’paper – Tsonis et al. have investigated the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation. By studying the last 100 years of these cycles’ patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times.
Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed. Then. a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability.
The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century.
Major climate shifts have occurred or will occur around 1913, 1942, 1978, 2033, and 2072, a 0.2 Celsius cooling between 2005 and 2020 should be followed by a 0.3 Celsius warming until 2045 or so – then cooling for the rest of the 21st century.
The link to Hansen seems rather tenuos, but it’s interesting that a NASA scientist was predicting a new ice age.
So Paul’s off the cosmic rays and solar cycles now grasping at latest theory. There’ll be something else next week. Tsonis has got nothing – statistical overfitting to the max. Get enough cycles and you’ll explain anything. That’s the problem. We’ll see how well it predicts on independent data.
On Greg F’s aerosols – errr nuh !
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/17/hemispheres/
SJT – ” I think we should try the guilt by association trick …”
Too late – already tried here many times!
If you’re associated with an Oil Company , you’re guilty of bad faith for raising any question about AGW.
Try to keep up.
Jim
there is a difference between being associated with an oil company, and being paid to attack AGW for short term profits.
Apologies SJT – (cocks head to the side) ” Please explain?”
Ya gotta laugh – Nexus 6 latest is classic
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/08/bottom-of-barrel.html
Deltoid barbecues McIntyre http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/the_mcintyre_factor.php#more
Morano needs to get out more. Maybe McIntyre could just analyse the crap out it all and report back. Spare us the tedious incrementalism and long polemics.
Another Nexus classic http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/09/deafening-silence.html
ROTFL !
That Antarctic ice sheet deal got me thinking.
In all our Yankee history books the ice age is show as a big glacier swallowing up the good old US of A and the other stuff that fringes our borders(Canada Russia and what not).
I am sure this is a cultural thing (we are the greatest after all), but I have never seen a map showing the effect of the ice age on the southern hemisphere.
Or maybe the ice age only picks on one half at a time? Maybe it’s always sunny down under even if the ice is carving up North America.
In that case, maybe it’s your turn to have a go at an ice age, and it’s our turn to kick back in the sun and gloat.
When you get tired of freezing your pitoohey off, come on up and visit sunny California.
We’ll leave the porch light on.
“So Paul’s off the cosmic rays and solar cycles now grasping at latest theory.”
Not at all – solar is an important climate driver that may also influence oscillations.
Luke wrote:
“Tsonis has got nothing – statistical overfitting to the max.”
Luke wouldn’t know a statistical overfit if it hit him between the eyes. That would explain his faith in the computer models.
Luke wrote:
“On Greg F’s aerosols – errr nuh !”
Luke’s math ignorance is thus displayed. He points to a blog where the author uses a low pass filter to wipe out the S. hemispheres cooling. The author also doesn’t disclose what the filter parameters were. Luke also doesn’t notice that before 1920 both hemispheres are pretty much the same. From 1920 to 1945 the N. Hemisphere warms considerably faster then the S. Hemisphere. He also, without comment, ignores the CRU data which differs from Hansen’s continuously changing data set.
Greg F – you just didn’t like the answer did you old son. Obviously you prefer the treachery of statistical models without any validation.
As for northern hemisphere warming faster – well else would you expect you wally ?
I thought you’d expect generally consistent warming between both hemispheres Luke – apparently there isn’t much variation in CO2 concentrations.
At this point I went and had a scotch. Until now I thought I was talking to a semi-intelligent yank.
Squeeze the buns hard, furrow the brow Jim and think what a basic difference between the hemispheres might be.
And Greg F – duh – maybe coz it’s a different analysis. Golly that was hard.
Luke wrote:
“you just didn’t like the answer did you old son.”
Luke didn’t give an answer. All he did is link to a blog where the author filtered Hansen’s data set without any justification (effectively throwing out information that doesn’t fit the story line). In a leap of faith the author then jumps to the conclusion that aerosols are responsible.
If you want to show aerosols are responsible you have to show that the cooling is geographically associated with the aerosol distribution. Modern day China might be a good place to start.
Waste at Starbucks: Coating on coffee cups puts lid on recycling
Excerpt: Starbucks goes through roughly 2.3 billion paper cups a year and touts its national award for using cups made of 10 percent recycled material. The sleeves on the cups even plead, “Help us help the planet.” But don’t be confused. Starbucks promotes recycling on its cups, but the cups themselves aren’t recyclable here or in most other cities nationwide. “Well, they tricked me,” said Nicole Mejias, 22, a self-described Starbucks freak. “I immediately associate recycling with Starbucks because of their cups. That’s so hypocritical. I would have never guessed” that the cups weren’t easily recyclable. The reason: The plastic coating that keeps the cup from leaking also prevents it from being recycled with other paper products. That could be overcome, but it would cost more. Anything can be recycled, but “The system is not designed to take the individual Starbucks cups,” said Steve Sargent, director of recycling for Rumpke Recycling, Columbus ‘ largest recycler.
Waste Management, North America ‘s largest recycler, won’t take the cups, either. But many employees have been telling customers otherwise. They say their Seattle-based employer never made the situation clear.
“I totally thought the cups were recyclable. I think almost everyone did,” said Melanie O’Brien, an Otterbein College student studying environmental initiatives who has worked at Starbucks.
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/09/17/starbucks.ART_ART_09-17-07_A1_IF7U38O.html?sid=101
Got to love Morano for publicising the greenwashing tactics of a globalised corporation..
For readers unfamiliar with Mr. Morano –
‘Marc Morano has become one of the leading conservative figures speaking out against the idea of global warming — at least, the idea that oil companies, mining firms, etc., should not be held accountable for making products that contribute to global warming.
Morano is a former reporter for CNSNews.com, where he most notoriously co-authored an attack on Democratic Rep. John Murtha — rehashing old scandals and suggesting that he didn’t earn his Vietnam War medals — that relied almost exclusively on sources who were dead, incapacitated or defeated political opponents of Murtha. (For such efforts, ConWebWatch awarded Morano a Slantie Award for career achievement in conservative media bias.)
While at CNS, Morano served as a willing amplifer of attacks on NASA global warming scientist James Hansen by George Deutsch, a former NASA press aide accused of censoring Hansen. (Deutsch was forced out of his job after it was revealed that he had not, as he had claimed on his resumé, graduated from college.)’
– Conwebwatch, 23/08/2007
OK Greg F – let’s take it your way – if you don’t like an attempt to fit a trend then – OK then there’s so trend and you have no argument. Can’t have it both ways.
Aerosols …. there’s a huge literature and well known effects like localised cooling over industrial areas.
But some of the really interesting work that’s most compelling is the effect of shipping pollution.
And of course some in depth reviews on the topic.
Science 28 August 1987:
Vol. 237. no. 4818, pp. 1020 – 1022
Effect of Ship-Stack Effluents on Cloud Reflectivity
JAMES A. COAKLEY JR. 1, ROBERT L. BERNSTEIN 2, and PHILIP A. DURKEE 3
1 National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307.
2 Sea Space, San Diego, CA 92122.
3 Department of Meteorology, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA 93943.
Under stable meteorological conditions the effect of ship-stack exhaust on overlying clouds was detected in daytime satellite images as an enhancement in cloud reflectivity at 3.7 micrometers. The exhaust is a source of cloud-condensation nuclei that increases the number of cloud droplets while reducing droplet size. This reduction in droplet size causes the reflectivity at 3.7 micrometers to be greater than the levels for nearby noncontaminated clouds of similar physical characteristics. The increase in droplet number causes the reflectivity at 0.63 micrometer to be significantly higher for the contaminated clouds despite the likelihood that the exhaust is a source of particles that absorb at visible wavelengths. The effect of aerosols on cloud reflectivity is expected to have a larger influence on the earth’s albedo than that due to the direct scattering and absorption of sunlight by the aerosols alone.
Submitted on April 13, 1987
Accepted on June 29, 1987
************
Science 1 December 1989:
Vol. 246. no. 4934, pp. 1146 – 1149
Direct and Remote Sensing Observations of the Effects of Ships on Clouds
LAWRENCE F. RADKE 1, JAMES A. COAKLEY JR. 2, and MICHAEL D. KING 3
1 Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.
2 Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331.
3 Laboratory for Atmospheres, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771.
Under certain conditions ships can affect the structure of shallow layer clouds. Simultaneous observations of two ship track signatures in stratus clouds from a satellite and in situ from an aircraft show that in the ship tracks the droplet sizes were reduced and total concentrations of both droplets and particles were substantially increased from those in adjacent clouds. In situ measurements of the upwelling radiance within the ship tracks was significantly enhanced at visible wavelengths, whereas radiance at 2.2 micrometers was significantly reduced. Cloud reflectivity along the tracks was enhanced at 0.63 and 3.7 micrometers. These observations support the contention that ship track signatures in clouds are produced primarily by particles emitted from ships.
***********
Nature 400, 743-746 (19 August 1999) | doi:10.1038/23438;
Effects of ship emissions on sulphur cycling and radiative climate forcing over the ocean
Kevin Capaldo1, James J. Corbett2, Prasad Kasibhatla4, Paul Fischbeck2,3 and Spyros N. Pandis1,2
Departments of Chemical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA
Departments of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA
Departments of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA
Nicholas School of the Enivronment, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA
The atmosphere overlying the ocean is very sensitive—physically, chemically and climatically—to air pollution. Given that clouds over the ocean are of great climatic significance, and that sulphate aerosols seem to be an important control on marine cloud formation1, anthropogenic inputs of sulphate to the marine atmosphere could exert an important influence on climate. Recently, sulphur emissions from fossil fuel burning by international shipping have been geographically characterized2, indicating that ship sulphur emissions nearly equal the natural sulphur flux from ocean to atmosphere in many areas3. Here we use a global chemical transport model to show that these ship emissions can be a dominant contributor to atmospheric sulphur dioxide concentrations over much of the world’s oceans and in several coastal regions. The ship emissions also contribute significantly to atmospheric non-seasalt sulphate concentrations over Northern Hemisphere ocean regions and parts of the Southern Pacific Ocean, and indirect radiative forcing due to ship-emitted particulate matter (sulphate plus organic material) is estimated to contribute a substantial fraction to the anthropogenic perturbation of the Earth’s radiation budget. The quantification of emissions from international shipping forces a re-evaluation of our present understanding of sulphur cycling and radiative forcing over the ocean.
*********
Science 24 January 1992:
Vol. 255. no. 5043, pp. 423 – 430
Articles
Climate Forcing by Anthropogenic Aerosols
R. J. CHARLSON 1, S. E. SCHWARTZ 2, J. M. HALES 3, R. D. CESS 4, J. A. COAKLEY JR. 5, J. E. HANSEN 6, and D. J. HOFMANN 7
1 Department of Atmospheric Sciences and the Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
2 Environmental Chemistry Division, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
3 Atmospheric Sciences Department, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA 99352
4 Institute for Terrestrial and Planetary Atmospheres, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794-2300
5 Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-2209
6 Goddard Institute for Space Studies, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025
7 Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303-3328
Although long considered to be of marginal importance to global climate change, tropospheric aerosol contributes substantially to radiative forcing, and anthropogenic sulfate aerosol in particular has imposed a major perturbation to this forcing. Both the direct scattering of shortwavelength solar radiation and the modification of the shortwave reflective properties of clouds by sulfate aerosol particles increase planetary albedo, thereby exerting a cooling influence on the planet. Current climate forcing due to anthropogenic sulfate is estimated to be –1 to –2 watts per square meter, globally averaged. This perturbation is comparable in magnitude to current anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing but opposite in sign. Thus, the aerosol forcing has likely offset global greenhouse warming to a substantial degree. However, differences in geographical and seasonal distributions of these forcings preclude any simple compensation. Aerosol effects must be taken into account in evaluating anthropogenic influences on past, current, and projected future climate and in formulating policy regarding controls on emission of greenhouse gases and sulfur dioxide. Resolution of such policy issues requires integrated research on the magnitude and geographical distribution of aerosol climate forcing and on the controlling chemical and physical processes.
As before Luke, when you direct people to scientific references, I predict a deathly silence.
Squeezed away Luke ( many have suggested that’s where my brain is located anyway) but I’m still flummoxed as to why GLOBAL warming is pretty much confined to one hemisphere?
Maybe the surface area of the oceans is greater in the south and/or the Antartic ccoling is masking the effect somewhat but then shouldn’t we call it something other than global warming?
Deathly silence? or *sounds of crickets chirping*
Lots of noise in your head SJT.
Jim – I was a bit rigorous – sorry confused you with James.
Simply much more ocean in the southern hemisphere to heat up.
Also Antarctic climate circulations different to the Arctic.
Pretty well everywhere is warming except Antarctica (at this point) so you could suggest it’s “almost global”
Interestingly the mid-troposphere above Antarctica is warming very quickly and the Antarctic Peninsula is warming heaps.
Rog sounds like he has tinnitus. Poor guy.
Yep, pretty much silence, or crickets. Either way, no response to Lukes references to science.
SJT wrote:
“Either way, no response to Lukes references to science.”
First SJT, your timetable is of no interest to me.
Second, the newest reference Luke provides is dated 1999. Do you think maybe there might be something more recent?
Third, Luke’s references do not address the cooling in the southern hemisphere. In fact, Luke fails to address the regional issue of sulfates at all.
AR4 WG1
Chapter 2 – pg 132
The Southern Hemisphere net positive RF (radiative forcing) very likely exceeds that in Northern Hemisphere because of smaller aerosol contributions in the Southern Hemisphere.
Luke also uses a 15 year old paper that says:
“Current climate forcing due to anthropogenic sulfate is estimated to be –1 to –2 watts per square meter, globally averaged.”
The most recent IPCC report states:
AR4 WG1
Chapter 2 – pg 131
“The direct RF of the individual aerosol species is less certain than the total direct aerosol RF. The estimates are: sulphate, –0.4 [±0.2] W m–2 …”
And.
AR4 WG1
Chapter 2 – pg 131
The total direct aerosol RF as derived from models and observations is estimated to be –0.5 [±0.4] W m–2, with a medium-low level of scientific understanding. The RF due to the cloud albedo effect (also referred to as first indirect or Twomey effect), in the context of liquid water clouds, is estimated to be –0.7 [–1.1, +0.4] W m–2, with a low level of scientific understanding.
Luke wrote:
“Aerosols …. there’s a huge literature and well known effects like localised cooling over industrial areas.”
As shown the “known effects” have medium-low to low level of scientific understanding. And one more thing, the majority of shipping is in the N. Hemisphere.
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/conc5en/maritimeroutes.html
Again, Luke fails to address the problem. If you want to show aerosols are responsible you have to show that the cooling is geographically associated with the aerosol distribution. His shipping references are non sequitur.
No Greg F – you’ve just ducked the main message to pluck a few cherries that don’t distract from the main demonstartion point. Nice try. The references show a remarkable local effect due to aerosol emissions that can’t be attributed to anything else – unless “God” draws streaks above shipping paths.
So a stark demonstration of what aerosols can do. Would you like to uninvent aerosols?
But aerosols are obviously not limited to shipping are they? In the southern hemisphere you have increased savanna burning and increasing oceanic dimethyl sulphides as the ocean warms.
What is most interesting is when you add the known solar, greenhouse and aerosol forcings into the climate models you do seem to derive the temperature response of the 20th century. And you don’t get that if you don’t mix the forcings. Hmmmm
As for Morano’s grubby business with Rassol in the lead above. What a load of crap.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/to_rasool.php
If you want to play IPCC
http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/images/avf3-24s.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/040.htm&h=430&w=350&sz=39&hl=en&start=19&sig2=RKBw2G4Pap683NI4ZbIvHw&um=1&tbnid=iG_TyuQ0RKL4MM:&tbnh=126&tbnw=103&ei=MVz4RoKcL4OsgQOM04jVDA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Daerosol%2Bglobal%2Bdistribution%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DGGLJ,GGLJ:2006-42,GGLJ:en-GB%26sa%3DN
Table 3-3: Non-volcanic upper tropospheric annual mean optical depth and % change per year, along with standard deviation, from SAGE satellite observations during 1979-97. Values in parentheses are for the Southern Hemisphere (adapted from Kent et al., 1998).
Latitude Band Annual Mean Optical Depth (10-4) Change per Year (%)
80-60° N(S) 25.1 ± 4.7 (2.9 ± 0.9) -0.4 ± 0.2 (-0.7 ± 0.6)
60-40° N(S) 18.1 ± 4.7 (7.0 ± 1.0) 0.4 ± 0.2 (1.4 ± 0.3)
40-20° N(S) 19.3 ± 2.9 (15.2 ± 2.5) 0.2 ± 0.1 (1.2 ± 0.2)
20-0° N(S) 19.6 ± 0.9 (18.2 ± 1.6) 0.2 ± 0.1 (0.8 ± 0.1)
Hemisphere N(S) 0.1 ± 0.1 (0.9 ± 0.3)
Globe 0.5 ± 0.2
Well looky at the optical depths over SH lower to mid latitudes vs NH….
Let me make this easy for you Luke since you seem to have a problem following a discussion.
1) SJT claimed the “dip in temperatures after the 40’s to the 70’s was due to particle pollution”.
2) I pointed out southern hemisphere cooled more then the northern hemisphere when the vast majority of the “particle pollution” was in the northern hemisphere.
3) Luke then points to a blog where the author uses a low pass filter to wipe out the S. hemispheres cooling. The author also doesn’t disclose what the filter parameters were. Luke also doesn’t notice that before 1920 both hemispheres are pretty much the same.
4) I told Luke if you want to show aerosols are responsible you have to show that the cooling is geographically associated with the aerosol distribution.
5) Luke then then goes off the tracks and responds with a non sequitur. “Aerosols …. there’s a huge literature and well known effects like localised cooling over industrial areas.”
6) I then point out that Luke’s references do not address the cooling in the southern hemisphere. In fact, Luke fails to address the regional issue of sulfates at all. I also cite the IPCC’s most recent report on aerosols showing they have a have medium-low to low level of scientific understanding.
7) Luke now is lost in what the discussion was about. Lacking any science training he fails to see it is not a question of if aerosols cause cooling, which I never disputed. The quantitative amount of cooling is what is at issue. At this point Luke still doesn’t have an explanation for the cooling in the S Hemisphere.
8) Luke now goes on his tangent “In the southern hemisphere you have increased savanna burning …” and “Non-volcanic upper tropospheric annual mean optical depth … from SAGE satellite observations during 1979-97.” Luke seems to have forgotten we were talking about the 40’s to the 70’s.
9) Luke then tops it off with the equally ignorant reference to the climate models that is not supported by the IPCC.
Posted by Oliver Morton on behalf of Kevin E. Trenberth
“None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today’s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.”
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html
Greg F are you really are being unbelieveably tedious. It is you that brings up the little “but but buts ” I answer them and then you claim it’s off the track.
Your points.
(3) Well propose another analysis, I could write Tamino and ask him what he’s done, but to my eye his “smoothing” is about right. SH did not cool to the extent of the NH IMO.
Wanna agrue – well propose another analysis given you are the great self-claimed scientist that you are – how hard is that? Given my lack of training I wouldn’t be able to 🙂
(5) Totally out of context – I illustrate an early discovery that illustrates aerosols have a powerful effect (AN EXAMPLE). My “non sequitur” is simply a “jeez do you want to go through all of it”
Obviously you do.
(6) medium to low level of understanding of all the components and all the interaction, but NOT ZERO !
(7) Not total ruse by yourself – otherwise why are we doing the discussion. Don’t try that on. In any case isn’t it strange that combining solar, greenhouse and aerosol forcings reproduces the temeprature trend of the 20th century but not of all combined. Greg F ignores.
(8) So now Greg get TEDIOUS. Brings up “of well shipping is mainly NH” – I respond with “well that’s not the only factors” AND if you want to try “hemispheres don’t mix” – well we’ll look at the optical depth data.
Yes I did actually realise the periods were not the same – yes it’s not definitive – but over very long period it shows significant aerosol effects in the southern hemsiphere. If you want to be tedious and suggest you can’t extrapolate back a few years and have a NH full of aerosols and a SH with none – well good luck.
(9) What a try-on – ask Trenberth if he’s concerned about global warming ?? Trenberth is making a very precise comment beyond the comprehension of most dimwit denialists – the IPCC scenarios are NOT forecasts. YUP that’s correct ! They are representations of broad global impacts under various greenhouse evolution scenarios. And El Nino, PDO and AMO are starting to feature in Hadley models. Early days yet and show Trenberth cautions that specific regional impacts are too early to tell.
Yep not as if I hadn’t seen the Trenberth comments earlier. Denialists went ballistic misrepresenting it.