An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

[mrkelley23]

The sensitivity of global temperature to increases in CO2 is what the debate is all about. The doom and gloom comes from the climate models

Not sure what point BobJ is trying to make, but there is another issue that is not being discussed much...yet. That is the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere. Once it's there, it's very difficult to cycle back into any other sphere of the ecosystem. The continued burning of fossil fuels, without any form of sequestration, is causing an alarming buildup of carbon in the atmosphere, which could have equally bad effects on life.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

The sensitivity of global temperature to increases in CO2 is what the debate is all about. The doom and gloom comes from the climate models

Nope, the "greenhouse effect" is caused by any and all of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and even ozone.

Water vapor is the majority green house gas in our atmosphere. Methane is a more powerful GHG but is more rare than CO2 and it breaks down in the atmosphere. NO2 and O3 are even more scarce.

[Bob Juch]

The sensitivity of global temperature to increases in CO2 is what the debate is all about. The doom and gloom comes from the climate models

Not sure what point BobJ is trying to make, but there is another issue that is not being discussed much...yet. That is the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere. Once it's there, it's very difficult to cycle back into any other sphere of the ecosystem. The continued burning of fossil fuels, without any form of sequestration, is causing an alarming buildup of carbon in the atmosphere, which could have equally bad effects on life.

My point is that since water vapor is both caused and a cause of warming that it can build geometrically.

Methane has carbon in it too.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

The sensitivity of global temperature to increases in CO2 is what the debate is all about. The doom and gloom comes from the climate models

Not sure what point BobJ is trying to make, but there is another issue that is not being discussed much...yet. That is the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere. Once it's there, it's very difficult to cycle back into any other sphere of the ecosystem. The continued burning of fossil fuels, without any form of sequestration, is causing an alarming buildup of carbon in the atmosphere, which could have equally bad effects on life.

Where does limestone come from and where do volcanoes get their CO2. CO2 level are near historical low in the geologic record http://www.pnas.org/content/102/3/690.full

[Bob78164]

The sensitivity of global temperature to increases in CO2 is what the debate is all about. The doom and gloom comes from the climate models

Nope, the "greenhouse effect" is caused by any and all of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and even ozone.

Water vapor is the majority green house gas in our atmosphere. Methane is a more powerful GHG but is more rare than CO2 and it breaks down in the atmosphere. NO2 and O3 are even more scarce.

Given the presence of enormous buffers (aka oceans), it's very hard to move the needle on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. That's not true of other greenhouse gases. --Bob

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

More from Andy Revkin http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/ ... blogs&_r=0

[ne1410s]

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Winston Churchill

[BackInTex]

Methane has carbon in it too.

I'm gonna go broke buying carbon offsets then.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Nope, the "greenhouse effect" is caused by any and all of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and even ozone.

Water vapor is the majority green house gas in our atmosphere. Methane is a more powerful GHG but is more rare than CO2 and it breaks down in the atmosphere. NO2 and O3 are even more scarce.

Given the presence of enormous buffers (aka oceans), it's very hard to move the needle on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. That's not true of other greenhouse gases. --Bob

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/m ... house-gas/

[jarnon]

Climate change has hit Jupiter too:
Jupiter's Great Red Spot Shrinks to Smallest Size Ever Seen

Here on Earth, climate change has been going on since the dawn of time, but human actions, like air and ocean pollution and destruction of forests and wetlands, have weakened natural defenses against its effects.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Here on Earth, climate change has been going on since the dawn of time, but human actions, like air and ocean pollution and destruction of forests and wetlands, have weakened natural defenses against its effects.

What are "natural defenses against effects of climate change"? Nature does not care about you, nature does not defend against climate change. Human actions have made us safer from harsh weather.

[jarnon]

Here on Earth, climate change has been going on since the dawn of time, but human actions, like air and ocean pollution and destruction of forests and wetlands, have weakened natural defenses against its effects.

What are "natural defenses against effects of climate change"? Nature does not care about you, nature does not defend against climate change. Human actions have made us safer from harsh weather.

No, nothing can stop climate change. But the Earth has natural features that reduce its effects. Forests and healthy oceans reduce pollution. Wetlands absorb flooding rains. Humans have to think about long-term effects when they alter the environment.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

No, nothing can stop climate change. But the Earth has natural features that reduce its effects. Forests and healthy oceans reduce pollution. Wetlands absorb flooding rains. Humans have to think about long-term effects when they alter the environment.

I would agree that it is foolish to clear forests to plant date palms to produce bio diesel* and you shouldn't build your homes in a river**, but reducing pollution*** makes for a healthier ocean not vice versa.

*Corn ethanol is bad enough
**hey you know what else reduces flooding -- dams!
***CO2 is not a pollutant or they would not put it in my Diet Coke

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it's being melted from below by geothermal heat, researchers at the Institute for Geophysics at The University of Texas at Austin (UTIG) report in the current edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The findings significantly change the understanding of conditions beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet where accurate information has previously been unobtainable.
The Thwaites Glacier has been the focus of considerable attention in recent weeks as other groups of researchers found the glacier is on the way to collapse, but more data and computer modeling are needed to determine when the collapse will begin in earnest and at what rate the sea level will increase as it proceeds. The new observations by UTIG will greatly inform these ice sheet modeling efforts.

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-major-west ... ermal.html

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014 ... evel-rises

A widely reported "pause" in global warming may be an artefact of scientists looking at the wrong data, says a climate scientist at the European Space Agency.

Global average sea surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s but have been relatively flat for the past 15 years. This has prompted speculation from some quarters that global warming has stalled.

Now, Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency's Directorate of Earth Observation says that sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as "lousy".

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Australia has repealed its carbon tax

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-17/l ... al/5603830

In this case, AGL Energy announced its pre-tax profits will fall by $186 million in 2014/15 solely due to the removal of the carbon tax. The majority of this is related to the very large, but inefficient Loy Yang brown coal station which supplies 30% of the power needs of the state of Victoria.

Loy Yang, on AGL’s own figures also released today, emits 50% more carbon dioxide than the average of Australia’s power generators. It’s amongst the single biggest emitters of CO2 in Australia.

Yet it was due to get $242 million of “Government assistance” under the carbon tax arrangements this year. Most of which found its way to the bottom line.

Go figure.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/t ... sequences/

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Here is a story of a premature epitaph

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/08/o ... -and-well/ Seychelles snail, believed extinct due to climate change, found ‘alive and well,’ says group

[BackInTex]

Here is a story of a premature epitaph

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/08/o ... -and-well/ Seychelles snail, believed extinct due to climate change, found ‘alive and well,’ says group

Didn't she sell Seychelles snails down by the seashore?

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/10/t ... s-iceberg/

The (sic) led to an event that can be likened to the proverbial iceberg unexpectedly popping up right in front of the German state ship while it was plowing through the waves on its climate-saving mission at full-steam. With just a 48-hour notice delivered by a personal phone call to Ms. Merkel on a Saturday, the CEO of E.ON, the largest German and European power producer, let it be known that the company had decided to split itself in two, one part grouping fossil and nuclear power generation and a second part encompassing the “politically correct” activities in the field of “renewable” energies. Sort of a “Bad E.ON” / “Good E.ON” move. The intention is to get rid of the “bad” part as soon as possible...

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Point one CO2 toxic? yes or no?

Irrelevant to its effect on climate

Now we have an explanation for this billboard

http://www.cfact.org/2015/02/02/epa-ema ... ge-agenda/

With public concern about climate waning, the EPA turned its anti-fossil messaging campaign to fear-mongering about child health impacts.

An internal 2009 email to top officials recognized that, “The number of Americans who say the global warming threat has been exaggerated is at an all-time high,” and that outreach pitches directed to polar ice cap and polar bear “mascots” were losing effectiveness.

Accordingly, it urges the agency to shift its emphasis to respiratory illness justifications which will “make this issue real for many Americans who would otherwise oppose many of our regulatory actions.”

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

For years, environmentalists and regulators have cited childhood asthma as an excuse for ever-stricter pollution rules. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for instance, uses asthma as a pretext for nearly every “clean air” regulation issued since the 1970s.

But what if the assumed link between air pollution and childhood asthma doesn’t actually exist?

New research questions the long-held wisdom on asthma and air pollution, casting doubt over the scientific basis for EPA’s expansive regulatory agenda….

The study still points to air pollution as a cause for asthma, only it’s indoor air pollution—think second hand smoke, rodents, mold, etc.—that may be the main culprit.

http://www.cato.org/blog/asthma-justifi ... jAOrSg:3WK

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

I find this stunning

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

,
This gives me an excuse to revisit the Senate hearing that kicked this all off back in June 1988, Senator Wirth D-CO

TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.

DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?

TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.[Shot of witnesses at hearing]

For lying about lying, Its hard to keep these things straight.

Over the years, the testimony presented at that hearing has been identified as a key turning point in public understanding of the climate issue. Some myths about the hearing also have circulated over the years, including the idea that windows were left open or the air conditioning was not working. While I’ve heard that version of events in the past, and repeated it myself, I’ve since learned it didn’t happen. So let’s put those stories to rest and instead focus on the substance of the hearing — the brave and prescient testimony of Dr. Jim Hansen. Twenty-five years later we know he was absolutely correct, and that policymakers in the United States and around the world need to initiate far-reaching actions to address this enormous challenge.

[The Spotless Sun]

I'm Back!!!

read my press clippings

http://bit.ly/1K4TK2C

The sun is almost completely blank. The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century.

[Spock]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/ ... on-capture

Long article by Jonathon Franzen about how the focus on "Climate Change" comes at the expense of conservation. Franzen is obviously not a conservative but his article (very closely) fits/describes my conservation views.

I suspect that many of the "Environmentalists" here have little knowledge of, or interest in, actual on-the-ground conservation.

Pull Quote>>

But climate change is seductive to organizations that want to be taken seriously. Besides being a ready-made meme, it’s usefully imponderable: while peer-reviewed scientific estimates put the annual American death toll of birds from collisions and from outdoor cats at more than three billion, no individual bird death can be definitively attributed to climate change (since local and short-term weather patterns have nonlinear causes). Although you could demonstrably save the lives of the birds now colliding with your windows or being killed by your cats, reducing your carbon footprint even to zero saves nothing.<<<