This is an interesting article which reveals some of the complexity involved with the relationship between the oceans and the atmosphere, and of course the role of carbon dioxide and global warming. Read carefully and you'll realize how little the scientists really know. They're doing what scientists do; exploring, speculating, trying to understand.
This means more study and more funding, which is fine; but there is just not enough evidence that man is causing global warming to create massive changes is social policy.
Peter
from: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news/2007/05_14_07.htm
News 05/14/07
Contact: Clare Oh 212-854-5479 or coh@ei.columbia.edu
Climate Swings Have Brought Great CO2 Pulses Up From the Deep Sea
Researchers use sophisticated research vessels to extract deep-sea sediment cores from oceans around the world, allowing them to chart past climate change.
A study released on May 11, 2007 provides some of the first solid evidence that warming-induced changes in ocean circulation at the end of the last Ice Age caused vast quantities of ancient carbon dioxide to belch from the deep sea into the atmosphere. Scientists believe the carbon dioxide (CO2) releases helped propel the world into further warming.
The study, done by researchers at the University of Colorado, Kent State University and Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, appears in the May 10 advance online version of the leading journal Science.
Atmospheric CO2, also produced by burning of fossil fuels, is largely responsible for global warming. However, scientists have known for some time that the gas also goes through natural cycles. By far most of the world’s mobile carbon is stored in the oceans — 40 trillion metric tons, or 15 times more than in air, soil and water combined. But how this vast marine reservoir interacts with the atmosphere has been a subject of debate for the last 25 years.
The study indicates what many scientists have long suspected, but could not prove: sometimes the oceans can release massive amounts of CO2 into the air as they overturn.
"The lesson is that abrupt changes in ocean circulation in the past have affected the oceans’ ability to keep carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere," said geologist Thomas Marchitto of the University of Colorado, a co-lead author. "This could help us understand how that ability might be affected by future global warming."
The researchers found the evidence in a core of Pacific Ocean sediment brought up from 705 meters — about 2,300 feet — off the coast of Baja California, Mexico. The core held the remains of bottom-dwelling protozoa called foraminifera, which take up carbon from surrounding water and use it to build their shells.
The isotope carbon 14 — normally used to date organic remains such as wood and bones — can also be used to date the water in which the foraminifera grew. Going back through layers built up over the past 38,000 years, the researchers found the shells contained expected levels of C14 in all but two brief periods, beginning roughly 18,000 years and 13,000 years ago. That meant the protozoa were using older sources of carbon, long isolated from the atmosphere.
The carbon could come from only one place: upwelling of the deep sea, from depths of 3 kilometers (nearly two miles) or more.
The researchers believe the water came not from the Pacific, but from the faraway Antarctic Ocean — the only part of the world where great upwelling can occur, due to the bottom topography and wind patterns. Most of the rising C02 probably poured out into the air in southern latitudes, but some carbon-rich water traveled on currents at intermediate depths to the north, where the foraminifera recorded its C14 signature. The upwelling and release of this carbon dioxide matches well with rapid warming and rises in atmospheric CO2 shown in glacial ice cores from Antarctica and other far-flung records.
The researchers believe that largely as a result of these episodes, CO2 in the atmosphere went from 190 parts per million (ppm) during glacial times to about 270 ppm, and remained at that level until recently. A similar but much more rapid rise, to 380 ppm, has taken place since the Industrial Revolution — most of it in the last few decades. Both rises almost certainly stoked global warming.
Exactly what caused the upwelling is not clear, but many scientists believe the world was already undergoing a natural warming cycle, possibly due to a slight periodic change in earth’s orbit. This suddenly ended the last Ice Age, in turn changing ocean currents and wind patterns. The hypothesis favored by paper’s authors is that sudden disintegration of northern ice sheets during this initial warming slowed or halted deep Atlantic Ocean circulation. This in turn warmed the Antarctic, causing massive retreats of sea ice and allowing deep Antarctic waters to surface.
Thus, it is possible that the signal detected in the Pacific ultimately originated on the other side of the world. "Once the CO2 started rising, it probably helped the warming process along — but exactly how much, we can’t say," said Robert Anderson, a Lamont-Doherty expert in ocean circulation who was not involved in the study. "And there is still huge uncertainty as to how the oceans will respond to current warming."
Anderson says the study should be a wake-up call to the scientific community to expand studies of the oceans’ relationship to climate change. Lamont-Doherty senior researcher Alexander van Geen, a coauthor of the paper, was chief scientist on the cruise that collected the cores, and has coordinated much research on them since.
The other authors are paleoclimatologists Scott Lehman and Jacqueline Flueckiger at the University of Colorado, and geochemist Joseph Ortiz of Kent State University.
The paper, "Marine radiocarbon evidence for the mechanism of deglacial atmospheric CO2 rise," was posted on Science Xpress on May 10, 2007. Background information on current thinking about ocean circulation and climate is contained in the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a member of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, is one of the world's leading research centers examining the planet from its core to its atmosphere, across every continent and every ocean. From global climate change to earthquakes, volcanoes, environmental hazards and beyond, Observatory scientists provide the basic knowledge of Earth systems needed to inform the future health and habitability of our planet.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Thursday, July 5, 2007
"Live Earth" Concerts, Reaction in the UK
The politicalization of global warming is a world-wide phenomena, as the Al Gore's series of up-coming world-wide global warming "Live Earth" concerts demonstrates. Very few people bother to learn about the science behind global warming. Most just accept what they are told. The Earth is warming, man's pollution is the cause and every weather disaster is the result.
We are told the situation is desperate. We must act now and the solution is to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Not only do few people understand the science, fewer people yet comprehend the economic implications of trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This is not about science, or the environment, it is about political control, pure and simple. The issue is not going away any time soon.
Peter
from: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200707/INT20070705b.html
As Gore Concerts Loom, UK Greens Step Up Lobbying
By Kevin McCandless CNSNews.com Correspondent July 05, 2007 London (CNSNews.com) -
As Al Gore prepares to kick off his world-wide global warming concerts on Saturday, a British environmental group has launched an Internet lobbying blitz for tougher climate laws. As part of the drive to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) -- a gas frequently blamed for climate change -- Friends of the Earth has set up a website that allows people to send videos to their members of parliament. Once users register with The Big Ask website, they will be able to upload homemade videos along with a personal message to their constituency MP, urging the lawmaker to vote for stricter environmental laws.
Hollywood stars such as Jude Law and Gillian Anderson have already made their own videos, which Friends of the Earth hopes to use to influence debate on a climate change bill set to be introduced in the House of Commons in the fall. Friends of the Earth spokesman Neil Verlander said the lobbying campaign actually has been underway since 2005, with over 170,000 people either writing or e-mailing parliament. The new thrust was designed to engage many more young people, a group not generally considered to be interested in politics.
Based on recent consultations, Verlander said it appeared the government would introduce a climate bill that included loopholes for the aviation industry and no set mechanism for reducing CO2 emissions."While we think it's a good step forward, we still think it's lacking," he said. "We want a law with teeth. "Verlander said his organization wants an annual three percent decrease in carbon emissions, with stronger powers for parliament to ensure this happens.
Along with the Big Ask campaign, Verlander said he hopes the Live Earth concerts this weekend will help to raise awareness of the need to fight climate change. Sponsored by former Vice President Gore, the Live Earth concerts will take place at 10 locations on all seven continents and will showcase around 150 popular music acts.
The Manifesto Club, a British civil libertarian group, has sharply criticized Live Earth, calling it just one more example of the degraded state of politics. Club spokesman James Panton told Cybercast News Service that "pop concert politics" was becoming the model politicians were using to communicate with the voters, a model he said was characterized by punchy sound bites and an attempt to impose a non-existent consensus.
Although organizers have said that Live Earth would encourage a debate on global warming, Panton said that the only political engagement concertgoers would need would be to "nod their heads and sway to the music." "It's a pop concert ... it's not reaching out to people," he said. "You're not engaging them politically." Panton said the question of global warming was still an open one but events like Live Earth would help to crush the kind of free debate countries need to resolve natural crises.
He said the Big Ask campaign sounded like a perfect example of the passivity encouraged by events like Live Earth. Although people might make videos themselves, Friends of the Earth would do the actual lobbying. Mark Lattimer, a leading human rights lobbyist, said the Internet could be useful for pressure groups but that its effect is limited. Although the Internet allows groups to show legislators that they have the support of many different people, mass emails often get deleted unread and unseen, he said. Lattimer said MPs usually take notice of an issue if they get more than 15 letters on relating to the subject, but those letters would have to be genuine, not a barrage of preprinted forms. In the end, short of threatening an MP with a lawsuit, the best way to get their attention is through old-fashioned face-to-face lobbying, he said.
See Earlier Story:Supporters Defend Gore Climate Concerts (June 15, 2007)
We are told the situation is desperate. We must act now and the solution is to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Not only do few people understand the science, fewer people yet comprehend the economic implications of trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This is not about science, or the environment, it is about political control, pure and simple. The issue is not going away any time soon.
Peter
from: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200707/INT20070705b.html
As Gore Concerts Loom, UK Greens Step Up Lobbying
By Kevin McCandless CNSNews.com Correspondent July 05, 2007 London (CNSNews.com) -
As Al Gore prepares to kick off his world-wide global warming concerts on Saturday, a British environmental group has launched an Internet lobbying blitz for tougher climate laws. As part of the drive to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) -- a gas frequently blamed for climate change -- Friends of the Earth has set up a website that allows people to send videos to their members of parliament. Once users register with The Big Ask website, they will be able to upload homemade videos along with a personal message to their constituency MP, urging the lawmaker to vote for stricter environmental laws.
Hollywood stars such as Jude Law and Gillian Anderson have already made their own videos, which Friends of the Earth hopes to use to influence debate on a climate change bill set to be introduced in the House of Commons in the fall. Friends of the Earth spokesman Neil Verlander said the lobbying campaign actually has been underway since 2005, with over 170,000 people either writing or e-mailing parliament. The new thrust was designed to engage many more young people, a group not generally considered to be interested in politics.
Based on recent consultations, Verlander said it appeared the government would introduce a climate bill that included loopholes for the aviation industry and no set mechanism for reducing CO2 emissions."While we think it's a good step forward, we still think it's lacking," he said. "We want a law with teeth. "Verlander said his organization wants an annual three percent decrease in carbon emissions, with stronger powers for parliament to ensure this happens.
Along with the Big Ask campaign, Verlander said he hopes the Live Earth concerts this weekend will help to raise awareness of the need to fight climate change. Sponsored by former Vice President Gore, the Live Earth concerts will take place at 10 locations on all seven continents and will showcase around 150 popular music acts.
The Manifesto Club, a British civil libertarian group, has sharply criticized Live Earth, calling it just one more example of the degraded state of politics. Club spokesman James Panton told Cybercast News Service that "pop concert politics" was becoming the model politicians were using to communicate with the voters, a model he said was characterized by punchy sound bites and an attempt to impose a non-existent consensus.
Although organizers have said that Live Earth would encourage a debate on global warming, Panton said that the only political engagement concertgoers would need would be to "nod their heads and sway to the music." "It's a pop concert ... it's not reaching out to people," he said. "You're not engaging them politically." Panton said the question of global warming was still an open one but events like Live Earth would help to crush the kind of free debate countries need to resolve natural crises.
He said the Big Ask campaign sounded like a perfect example of the passivity encouraged by events like Live Earth. Although people might make videos themselves, Friends of the Earth would do the actual lobbying. Mark Lattimer, a leading human rights lobbyist, said the Internet could be useful for pressure groups but that its effect is limited. Although the Internet allows groups to show legislators that they have the support of many different people, mass emails often get deleted unread and unseen, he said. Lattimer said MPs usually take notice of an issue if they get more than 15 letters on relating to the subject, but those letters would have to be genuine, not a barrage of preprinted forms. In the end, short of threatening an MP with a lawsuit, the best way to get their attention is through old-fashioned face-to-face lobbying, he said.
See Earlier Story:Supporters Defend Gore Climate Concerts (June 15, 2007)
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Like Father, Like Son: Al Gore Jr. Publisher and Hypocrite
Oh this is rich. It seems Al Gore III has a need for speed, in more ways than one. At least he was driving an Earth-friendly Toyota Prius. I didn't know they could go 100 mph! Very impressive. So he was speeding while using and in the possession of illegal drugs, with obvious disdain for the safety of anyone else. That is not very nice, or smart.
The kicker for me was seeing what Gore Jr. is doing for a living......He is an associate publisher for GOOD magazine, which promotes philanthropy FOR young people. What total hypocrisy and mind-boggling, humanity-insulting nerve. The whole family should be honest and just admit that what they are really about is philanthropy for the Gore's. Now we know where all the ticket money for these "Live Earth" concerts is going.
Peter
from:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19601277/
Al Gore's son arrested for drug possession
24-year-old was driving Prius at about 100 mph, authorities say
Kevork Djansezian / AP
LAGUNA NIGUEL, Calif. - Al Gore's son was arrested early Wednesday on suspicion of possessing marijuana and prescription drugs after deputies pulled him over for speeding, authorities said.
Al Gore III, 24, was driving a blue Toyota Prius about 100 mph on the San Diego Freeway when he was pulled over at about 2:15 a.m., Sheriff's Department spokesman Jim Amormino said.
The deputies said they smelled marijuana and searched the car, Amormino said. They found less than an ounce of marijuana along with Xanax, Valium, Vicodin and Adderall, which is used for attention deficit disorder, he said.
"He does not have a prescription for any of those drugs," Amormino said.
Gore was being held in the men's central jail in Santa Ana on $20,000 bail.
Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for his parents, did not immediately return phone messages to The Associated Press on Wednesday.
Prior arrest in 2003
The son of the former vice president and Democratic presidential nominee also was pulled over and arrested for pot possession in December 2003, in Bethesda, Md., while he was a student at Harvard University.
He completed substance abuse counseling as part of a pretrial diversion program to settle those charges.
The youngest of Al and Tipper Gore's four children and their only son, Gore lives in Los Angeles and is an associate publisher of GOOD, a magazine about philanthropy aimed at young people.
The kicker for me was seeing what Gore Jr. is doing for a living......He is an associate publisher for GOOD magazine, which promotes philanthropy FOR young people. What total hypocrisy and mind-boggling, humanity-insulting nerve. The whole family should be honest and just admit that what they are really about is philanthropy for the Gore's. Now we know where all the ticket money for these "Live Earth" concerts is going.
Peter
from:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19601277/
Al Gore's son arrested for drug possession
24-year-old was driving Prius at about 100 mph, authorities say
Kevork Djansezian / AP
LAGUNA NIGUEL, Calif. - Al Gore's son was arrested early Wednesday on suspicion of possessing marijuana and prescription drugs after deputies pulled him over for speeding, authorities said.
Al Gore III, 24, was driving a blue Toyota Prius about 100 mph on the San Diego Freeway when he was pulled over at about 2:15 a.m., Sheriff's Department spokesman Jim Amormino said.
The deputies said they smelled marijuana and searched the car, Amormino said. They found less than an ounce of marijuana along with Xanax, Valium, Vicodin and Adderall, which is used for attention deficit disorder, he said.
"He does not have a prescription for any of those drugs," Amormino said.
Gore was being held in the men's central jail in Santa Ana on $20,000 bail.
Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for his parents, did not immediately return phone messages to The Associated Press on Wednesday.
Prior arrest in 2003
The son of the former vice president and Democratic presidential nominee also was pulled over and arrested for pot possession in December 2003, in Bethesda, Md., while he was a student at Harvard University.
He completed substance abuse counseling as part of a pretrial diversion program to settle those charges.
The youngest of Al and Tipper Gore's four children and their only son, Gore lives in Los Angeles and is an associate publisher of GOOD, a magazine about philanthropy aimed at young people.
NASA Says: The Greenhouse Effect - It's Mostly About Water
I guess nobody pays attention to NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), surely not politicians, celebrities, and environmentalists who claim to have such strong feelings about Mother Earth.
The Earth receives its heat from the Sun, and some of it is trapped in the atmosphere by water in various forms, mainly vapor. NASA has an annual budget of $16.8 Billion for 2007. Maybe more people should listen to what they have to say.
Why is there such a rush and panic to demonize carbon dioxide when even NASA says it plays only a minor role in global warming. Why don't we see more news articles such as the following?
Peter
from: http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/News/Features/FeaturesClimateChange/GreenhouseEffect/
Features: NASA's New Satellite Takes on Global Change
The Greenhouse Effect - It's Mostly About Water
A real greenhouse is made of glass, which lets visible sunlight through from the outside. This light gets absorbed by all the materials inside, and the warmed surfaces radiate infrared light, sometimes called "heat rays", back. But the glass, although transparent to visible light, acts as a partial barrier to the infrared light. So some of this infrared radiation, or heat, gets trapped inside. The result is that everything inside the greenhouse, including the air, becomes warmer.
Similarly, light from the sun passes almost unhindered through Earth's atmosphere. It gets absorbed by the ocean and land surfaces, which warm and radiate infrared energy (heat!) back into the atmosphere. However, some atmospheric gases absorb these heat rays and trap the energy inside the atmosphere. The net result is warming.
The most prominent green house gas is water vapor. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is also very important, and there are a number of minor green house gases as well. AIRS is the first satellite to measure the three-dimensional global distribution of atmospheric water vapor and carbon dioxide from space.
Water plays a very complex role in the atmosphere, because it can exist as a gas in the form of water vapor, a liquid in the form of water clouds and rain, and a solid in the form of ice clouds and snow. Although water in its vapor form will usually enhance the greenhouse effect, clouds can sometimes act like a greenhouse gas and sometimes can weaken it. Some types of clouds trap infrared heat rays, and some types of clouds reflect sunlight back to space very efficiently and prevent this energy from contributing to the heating process.
Clouds that are low in the atmosphere are warm and thus radiate heat back to space at a greater rate than high altitude clouds which are colder. High cold clouds are usually reflective, typically because they consist of very small droplets of small to large ice crystals. It's easy to tell by just looking: if a cloud is white, it is reflecting sunlight; if it is dark, it is usually absorbing sunlight (and the darker it is, the more likely it is to rain). Also, how a cloud behaves radiatively depends more on the size of the droplets or ice particles and the water content than on its temperature.
Water cycles through many forms. It falls as rain or snow, soaks into the soil, runs into lakes and oceans, and evaporates again into atmospheric water vapor, where it can condense into cloud droplets and eventually fall as rain and snow. We call this the water cycle.
If Earth's water flows through this cycle at a faster pace, it is likely that more clouds will form. However, because the effects of clouds can vary, it¹s not obvious whether this will lead to global warming or cooling - or neither. This is a primary focus for scientists working with AIRS data.
The Earth receives its heat from the Sun, and some of it is trapped in the atmosphere by water in various forms, mainly vapor. NASA has an annual budget of $16.8 Billion for 2007. Maybe more people should listen to what they have to say.
Why is there such a rush and panic to demonize carbon dioxide when even NASA says it plays only a minor role in global warming. Why don't we see more news articles such as the following?
Peter
from: http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/News/Features/FeaturesClimateChange/GreenhouseEffect/
Features: NASA's New Satellite Takes on Global Change
The Greenhouse Effect - It's Mostly About Water
A real greenhouse is made of glass, which lets visible sunlight through from the outside. This light gets absorbed by all the materials inside, and the warmed surfaces radiate infrared light, sometimes called "heat rays", back. But the glass, although transparent to visible light, acts as a partial barrier to the infrared light. So some of this infrared radiation, or heat, gets trapped inside. The result is that everything inside the greenhouse, including the air, becomes warmer.
Similarly, light from the sun passes almost unhindered through Earth's atmosphere. It gets absorbed by the ocean and land surfaces, which warm and radiate infrared energy (heat!) back into the atmosphere. However, some atmospheric gases absorb these heat rays and trap the energy inside the atmosphere. The net result is warming.
The most prominent green house gas is water vapor. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is also very important, and there are a number of minor green house gases as well. AIRS is the first satellite to measure the three-dimensional global distribution of atmospheric water vapor and carbon dioxide from space.
Water plays a very complex role in the atmosphere, because it can exist as a gas in the form of water vapor, a liquid in the form of water clouds and rain, and a solid in the form of ice clouds and snow. Although water in its vapor form will usually enhance the greenhouse effect, clouds can sometimes act like a greenhouse gas and sometimes can weaken it. Some types of clouds trap infrared heat rays, and some types of clouds reflect sunlight back to space very efficiently and prevent this energy from contributing to the heating process.
Clouds that are low in the atmosphere are warm and thus radiate heat back to space at a greater rate than high altitude clouds which are colder. High cold clouds are usually reflective, typically because they consist of very small droplets of small to large ice crystals. It's easy to tell by just looking: if a cloud is white, it is reflecting sunlight; if it is dark, it is usually absorbing sunlight (and the darker it is, the more likely it is to rain). Also, how a cloud behaves radiatively depends more on the size of the droplets or ice particles and the water content than on its temperature.
Water cycles through many forms. It falls as rain or snow, soaks into the soil, runs into lakes and oceans, and evaporates again into atmospheric water vapor, where it can condense into cloud droplets and eventually fall as rain and snow. We call this the water cycle.
If Earth's water flows through this cycle at a faster pace, it is likely that more clouds will form. However, because the effects of clouds can vary, it¹s not obvious whether this will lead to global warming or cooling - or neither. This is a primary focus for scientists working with AIRS data.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
World Climate Predictors Right Only Half The Time
I think this Dr. Renwick, is being optimistic when he states that they can only achieve around 50 per cent accuracy in it's climate (or is it weather) forecasts. However, I'll take his word for it. I hope politicians around the world begin to listen more closely to the scientists, and not the UN's IPCC bureaucrats.
Peter
World climate predictors right only half the time
Friday,8 June 2007, 10:25 amPress Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition Media release (immediate) 7 June 2007
World climate predictors right only half the time
"The open admission by a climate scientist of the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Dr Jim Renwick, that his organisation achieves only 50 per cent accuracy in its climate forecasts, and that this is as good as any other forecaster around the world, should be a wake-up call for world political leaders," said Rear Admiral Jack Welch, chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
Yesterday the coalition published an analysis of seasonal climate predictions by NIWA over the past five years which found that the overall accuracy of the predictions was just 48 per cent.
Defending the Niwa record, Dr Renwick said his organisation was doing as well as any other weather forecaster around the world. He was quoted by the country's leading newspaper, the New Zealand Herald as saying: "Climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well." Later on New Zealand radio, Dr Renwick said: "The weather is not predictable beyond a week or two."
Admiral Welch said that these statements warrant immediate attention by governments around the world. "Dr Renwick is no lightweight. He was a lead author on Working Group I of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and serves on the World Meteorological Organisation Commission for Climatology Expert Team on Seasonal Forecasting. He is presumed to be au fait with the abilities of the official governmental climate prediction community round the world.
"All round the developed world, governments are being pressured by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to accept the integrity of scenarios of future climate behaviour agreed by their own climate bureaucrats, but these bureaucrats are the very people that Dr Renwick now tells us get it right only half the time. Worse, he tells us they are unable to predict weather beyond a week or two, yet in conjunction with the IPCC they presume to tell us what to expect over the next few decades.
"The link between climate and weather is well known: climate is determined by averaging weather variables over an extended period (usually 30 years) at one place or for a region. How can there be any faith in climate predictions by officials who admit they are unable to forecast the weather beyond a week or two?
"Perhaps now, governments will pay heed to those many independent climate scientists around the world who have been challenging the exaggerated projections by IPCC officials, and those political zealots such as Al Gore who use those predictions to mislead the ordinary public.
"In the light of these revelations and recent strong evidence that the sun not carbon dioxide controls the climate, the new Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki Moon would do the world a great service by creating an opportunity for the world to hear from the independent scientists who disagree with the IPCC's blaming mankind for climate variability that is natural and historic.
There is no scientific justification for some of the extremist economic and social penalties that a minority of zealots are trying to impose on the people of the world.
"This is a matter of grave import and urgency for poorer nations who will suffer most from the proposed penal measures, " said Admiral Welch.
Peter
World climate predictors right only half the time
Friday,8 June 2007, 10:25 amPress Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition Media release (immediate) 7 June 2007
World climate predictors right only half the time
"The open admission by a climate scientist of the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Dr Jim Renwick, that his organisation achieves only 50 per cent accuracy in its climate forecasts, and that this is as good as any other forecaster around the world, should be a wake-up call for world political leaders," said Rear Admiral Jack Welch, chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
Yesterday the coalition published an analysis of seasonal climate predictions by NIWA over the past five years which found that the overall accuracy of the predictions was just 48 per cent.
Defending the Niwa record, Dr Renwick said his organisation was doing as well as any other weather forecaster around the world. He was quoted by the country's leading newspaper, the New Zealand Herald as saying: "Climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well." Later on New Zealand radio, Dr Renwick said: "The weather is not predictable beyond a week or two."
Admiral Welch said that these statements warrant immediate attention by governments around the world. "Dr Renwick is no lightweight. He was a lead author on Working Group I of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and serves on the World Meteorological Organisation Commission for Climatology Expert Team on Seasonal Forecasting. He is presumed to be au fait with the abilities of the official governmental climate prediction community round the world.
"All round the developed world, governments are being pressured by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to accept the integrity of scenarios of future climate behaviour agreed by their own climate bureaucrats, but these bureaucrats are the very people that Dr Renwick now tells us get it right only half the time. Worse, he tells us they are unable to predict weather beyond a week or two, yet in conjunction with the IPCC they presume to tell us what to expect over the next few decades.
"The link between climate and weather is well known: climate is determined by averaging weather variables over an extended period (usually 30 years) at one place or for a region. How can there be any faith in climate predictions by officials who admit they are unable to forecast the weather beyond a week or two?
"Perhaps now, governments will pay heed to those many independent climate scientists around the world who have been challenging the exaggerated projections by IPCC officials, and those political zealots such as Al Gore who use those predictions to mislead the ordinary public.
"In the light of these revelations and recent strong evidence that the sun not carbon dioxide controls the climate, the new Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki Moon would do the world a great service by creating an opportunity for the world to hear from the independent scientists who disagree with the IPCC's blaming mankind for climate variability that is natural and historic.
There is no scientific justification for some of the extremist economic and social penalties that a minority of zealots are trying to impose on the people of the world.
"This is a matter of grave import and urgency for poorer nations who will suffer most from the proposed penal measures, " said Admiral Welch.
Professor Wants To Bet That Al Gore Is Wrong About Global Warming
Don't anyone hold their breath waiting for Al Gore to seriously debate anyone about his view of global warming. Maybe this kind of challenge will stir others to question the folly of man-caused global warming and trying to control it.
Peter
One Expert Is Willing to Bet Money Al Gore Is Wrong About Global Warming
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
By Brit Hume
Global Warming Bet
An internationally known expert on forecasting methods is challenging Al Gore to a bet over his prediction of global warming temperature increases.
Marketing professor Scott Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton business school is offering to put up $10,000 in a bet for charity.
The wager would involve Gore's forecasts against what is called the "naive model" — in which temperatures basically would stay the same.
Armstrong believes most climate change forecasts use bad methodology. He says the bet is meant as a way to provoke debate.
Armstrong says he hasn't gotten a response yet — and Gore's office did not return a call from us asking for reaction to the challenge.
Peter
One Expert Is Willing to Bet Money Al Gore Is Wrong About Global Warming
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
By Brit Hume
Global Warming Bet
An internationally known expert on forecasting methods is challenging Al Gore to a bet over his prediction of global warming temperature increases.
Marketing professor Scott Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton business school is offering to put up $10,000 in a bet for charity.
The wager would involve Gore's forecasts against what is called the "naive model" — in which temperatures basically would stay the same.
Armstrong believes most climate change forecasts use bad methodology. He says the bet is meant as a way to provoke debate.
Armstrong says he hasn't gotten a response yet — and Gore's office did not return a call from us asking for reaction to the challenge.
Member Of UN IPCC Climate Team Say You Can't Predict Cliimate Change
I have a feeling that more and more climate scientists are going to be abandoning ship when it comes to computer modeling future climate changes. The entire case rests on the assumption that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. They know they have no case and they're not going to be willing to go down with a sinking ship. See the following article.
Peter
Member of the U.N. Climate Team Says You Can't Accurately Predict Climate Change
Friday, June 29, 2007
By Brit Hume
Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:
Computer Models
A noted climate scientist who is part of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, now says computer models cannot predict future climate — and he says the IPCC is not in the climate prediction business.
Kevin Trenberth of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote on a nature magazine blog that the U.N.'s dire forecasts about the dangers of global warming are not climate predictions.
He says they are "what if" projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. And he admits the computer models don't even consider things such as the recovery of the ozone layer.
He writes — "The current projection method…can not work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle...The science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate."
Peter
Member of the U.N. Climate Team Says You Can't Accurately Predict Climate Change
Friday, June 29, 2007
By Brit Hume
Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:
Computer Models
A noted climate scientist who is part of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, now says computer models cannot predict future climate — and he says the IPCC is not in the climate prediction business.
Kevin Trenberth of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote on a nature magazine blog that the U.N.'s dire forecasts about the dangers of global warming are not climate predictions.
He says they are "what if" projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. And he admits the computer models don't even consider things such as the recovery of the ozone layer.
He writes — "The current projection method…can not work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle...The science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)