more views on climate changes

The 2014 U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA) report has been receiving much attention since President Obama heralded it in his speech back in May. The administration realizes that the push for ever greater climate change regulations requires convincing evidence of sufficient alarm to justify this authoritarian push. While this report delivers the alarm, it falls short on verifiable evidence. Indeed, a scientific rebuttal of many parts of the NCA report appears here….I am sorry, but Tom and I both feel that being wrong 41 percent of the time over the last twelve years is certainly not a good enough track record to justify using these findings to impose many billions of dollars’ worth of climate change regulations onto a sputtering American economy.      http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-the-2014-national-climate-assessment-report/#sthash.tVMlSEfH.dpuf

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

One has to go to the link  http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-3/temperature-trend-changes/past-climates.php and click on the graph IN ORDER TO SEE THE RECENT–FAR RIGHT SIDE OF GRAPH–DIRECTION.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

This illustration is a sketch of data from Durkin, based on data published by Friis-Christensen and Lassen. The end of the solar data has been altered in response to corrections of their data. This correlation between solar activity and temperature has been critiqued by Schneider and others, so it is an active area of investigation. The measured solar activity is well-correlated with the observed temperature variations, but does not follow the recent upturn in temperature as the originally published plot indicated.    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html#c1

climate modeling is very complex, the stakes are very high, and there are numerous special interests. This situation is tailor-made for controversy. The following are some of the types of objections that skeptics of CO2-driven global warming raise:

  • The CO2 is not sufficient to drive the currently observed warming.
  • The atmospheric CO2 level has been up to 10 times higher in the past. Why weren’t there catastrophic consequences then?
  • Much of this century’s temperature rise was in early years when industrial emissions were small, and there was a temperature decrease during the postwar economic boom.
  • Ice core records show CO2 rises lagging temperature rises rather than driving them.
  • Surface warming is more than atmospheric warming, in contrast to CO2-driven models.
  • The global temperature of t he past century correlates more strongly with solar activity than with CO2.
  • The sunspot activity of our Sun and the associated magnetic fields divert some of the cosmic rays that nucleate clouds on the Earth.     http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/gwskeptic.html

………………………………………….

Water in its various forms is overwhelmingly the most important substance in climate system. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, even more effective at absorbing the thermal radiation from the Earth’s surface than carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide has a special role simply because its absorption spectra differs to a degree from that of water vapor.

There has been an attempt on the part of computer modelers to deny the role of water vapor. Yes, they include the positive feedback effect but that is not the only way water vapor is involved in the climate system.  http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/watervapor01.htm

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

6-25-12   Finally, there is the issue of water vapor in the stratosphere. Compared to the troposphere (lowest 10 km of the atmosphere), the stratosphere (10 to 50 km altitude) is quite dry. Water vapor that reaches the stratosphere can be effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere. In an article published by Science (2010), 3researchers suggest extra water vapor that reached the stratosphere in the 1980s and 1990s enhanced climate warming in the 90s up to 30 percent. Conversely, a 10 percent reduction in stratospheric water vapor observed during the 2000s may have slowed warming by 25 percent.4

Although the effects of water vapor in future global warming is potentially significant, much more research is needed to properly understand the role of this greenhouse gas on the Earth’s greenhouse effect. Understanding this problem is made more difficult by the characteristically non-homogenous distribution of water vapor throughout the atmosphere and by water vapor’s ability to transport heat through changes in state (latent energy). Continued research should help establish whether water vapor (in its various forms) will exacerbate or reduce anticipated effects of climate change. Nevertheless, the research discussed here suggests that water vapor may be another fine-tuned tool designed to moderate the Earth’s climate.  http://www.reasons.org/articles/climate-change-warming-and-water-vapor

…………………………………………………………………….

0.02°C Temperature Rise Averted: The Vital Number Missing from the EPA’s “By the Numbers” Fact Sheet

6-11-14   Last week, the Obama Administration’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled a new set of proposed regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from existing U. S. power plants. The motivation for the EPA’s plan comes from the President’s desire to address and mitigate anthropogenic climate change.

We hate to be the party poopers, but the new regulations will do no such thing.

The EPA’s regulations seek to limit carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production in the year 2030 to a level 30 percent below what they were in 2005. It is worth noting that power plant CO2 emissions already dropped by about 15% from 2005 to2012, largely, because of market forces which favor less-CO2-emitting natural gas over coal as the fuel of choice for producing electricity. Apparently the President wants to lock in those gains and manipulate the market to see that the same decline takes place in twice the time.  Nothing like government intervention to facilitate market inefficiency. But we digress.

The EPA highlighted what the plan would achieve in their “By the Numbers” Fact Sheet that accompanied their big announcement.

For some reason, they left off their Fact Sheet how much climate change would be averted by the plan. Seems like a strange omission since, after all, without the threat of climate change, there would be no one thinking about the forced abridgement of our primary source of power production in the first place, and the Administration’s new emissions restriction scheme wouldn’t even be a gleam in this or any other president’s eye.

But no worries.  What the EPA left out, we’ll fill in.

Using a simple, publically-available, climate model emulator called MAGICC that was in part developed through support of the EPA, we ran the numbers as to how much future temperature rise would be averted by a complete adoption and adherence to the EPA’s new carbon dioxide restrictions*.

The answer? Less than two one-hundredths of a degree Celsius by the year 2100.

0.018°C to be exact.

We’re not even sure how to put such a small number into practical terms, because, basically, the number is so small as to be undetectable.

Which, no doubt, is why it’s not included in the EPA Fact Sheet.

It is not too small, however, that it shouldn’t play a huge role in every and all discussions of the new regulations.    http://www.cato.org/blog/002degc-temperature-rise-averted-vital-number-missing-epas-numbers-fact-sheet

…………………………………………………………………………

Earth’s climate is currently in one of the warmest periods of the Holocene (past 10K years). It is unlikely that the Planet will become any warmer over the next 100 years, because the cloud cover appears to have reached a minimum for the present levels of solar irradiance and atmospheric pressure, and the solar magnetic activity began declining, which may lead to more clouds and a higher planetary albedo. At this point, only a sizable increase of the total atmospheric mass can bring about a significant and sustained warming. However, human-induced gaseous emissions are extremely unlikely to produce such a mass increase.  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/

comment to above by

What has long bothered me has been the question of latency: suppose carbon dioxide stored outgoing radiation. How long would that energy be held? It seems to me that, regardless of the latency time (milliseconds or centuries) that stored heat energy would be released, and thus the long-term stability of the atmospheric PVT would not change.
Besides, without a good understanding of the carbon dioxide budget (absorption/release from the oceans, absorption/release from plants, absorption/release from animal life), all of these strongly dependent on temperature, we have little to go on as yet.
Combine our ignorance of the details of the whole C02 budget with the enormous bugger factors used in producing the false hockey stick, and you get exactly what we have now: bogus science.

Extremely interesting paper, which certainly appears to hold up on first reading!

It will be very interesting to follow the reaction of those who have hung their hat on other mechanisms for heating.

Thinking for a moment about the implications of this approach, and how they relate to significant global temperature shifts such as ice ages.

Can enough CO2 and other gases be absorbed in a cold sea to materially change the planetary atmospheric mass? Could an ice age be triggered simply by a periodic shutdown of volcanic out gassing, or perhaps by some external mechanism that strips off significant atmospheric mass such as changes in solar wind, UV ionization changing the size (volume) of the atmosphere and decomposing water vapor into oxygen and hydrogen with eventual loss of hydrogen to space.

Would a major asteroid or cometary impactor, “blow off” enough atmosphere to temporarily cool the earth by changing the atmospheric mass to a new lower value until volcanic activity had time (100,000 years or so) to replenish the blown off atmosphere?

Would the atmospheric mass periodically vary due to local changes in the interstellar environment as the earth moves through the galactic disk? Perhaps as it enters or leaves areas where higher or lower flux of small dust and micrometeorites changes the constant external contribution to atmospheric gasses as these particles vaporize as they enter the atmosphere?   All of the above?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s