Changing the Conversation: Extreme Weather and Climate

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:21 AM GMT on June 06, 2011

Share this Blog
4
+

Changing the Conversation: Extreme Weather and Climate

It has been an exceptional year of tornadoes in the U.S. Hundreds have died and several cities have been especially hard hit(Jeff Masters on Living on Earth). Ultimately, I will talk about these tornadoes and climate change and bring, at least temporarily, closure to my discussion on event attribution and climate change. (First in Series, Second in Series)

First, I want to write a couple of casual observations about forecasts and warnings. In 1953 there was a tornado in Flint, Michigan that killed more than 100 people. Many comparisons have been made between that 1953 tornado and the 2011 tornado in Joplin, Missouri. One of the comments that I have heard is that comparing 2011 to other years in terms of risk to human health, we can say that the health risk is less in 2011 than 60 years ago. The logic in the argument is that we have many more people in the U.S. today, and hence, if the risk was the same, then more people would have died in 2011. Standing alone, this is a peculiar argument, but it got me to thinking about risk.

Several times this year I have heard mayors of towns say that the warnings they had received for either tornadoes or floods have saved many lives and property. If you go back and check the forecasts, there are cases when a high probability of tornado activity has been predicted several days in advance. When it gets down to actual tornado warnings, the mayors in interviews say that people had 25-30 minutes to prepare, to take cover. Compared with the 1953’s state of knowledge and the ability to forecast both these long-term forecasts and short-term warnings are stunning advances. What stands at the basis of these advances? Observations, predictive models, and the ability of models to ingest and use those observations in forecasting. There is technology, and there is a lot of scientific theory and plain smartness tied up in those models and their interpretation. When we talk about federal science budgets for weather and climate, we are talking about predictions and risk assessment and warnings and knowledge which provide the opportunities for individuals and organizations to make good decisions.

If there is less risk to human health in 2011 than in 1953, then much of that risk reduction is due to improvements in model-based predictions.

Back to climate change. In my previous entries on event attribution I argued that the media discussion of the attribution of specific extreme events, primarily, contributed to the political argument rather than to the communication of scientific knowledge. As such, the primary product of this media discussion is to build and maintain doubt. Since that last blog, Christine Shearer and I completed and published an article in IEEE Earthzine, called Changing the Media Discussion on Climate and Extreme Weather. All I will do here is to highlight some of the arguments that we made:

1) We assert that a journalist’s question that asks a scientist to provide a yes-or-no answer to whether or not an extreme event is “caused” by climate change is, scientifically, ill posed.

2) That scientists are part of the conversation, and it is their role to participate in such a way that leads to a scientifically correct question.

3) The question in number 1 is ill posed for a number of reasons, but at the top of the list is because it requires the scientist to suppose there are two climates: one with and one without anthropogenic warming. We only have one climate, and we see the warmer climate, the moisture air, and the extreme weather evolving in that warming climate.

If you’re interested read the article. More generally, there are some very good articles in IEEE Earthzine. Christine Shearer and I have gotten a number of good comments on the paper, and through it all, I was interviewed by Tony Wood of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who wrote a nice story. This led to me getting an email from a Hal Hartung who maintains a web site on Anthropogenic Peat. Mr. Hartung made an interesting comment to me concerning the discussion of global warming which is: given that greenhouse gases are well known to hold energy close to the Earth, those who deny an anthropogenic impact on weather, need to pose a viable mechanism of how the Earth can hold in more energy and the weather not be changed. Think about it.

r

P.S. One of my former students, Amanda Graor, wrote me to correct an error in the original posting of this blog. Here is her blog on volunteering in Joplin.








Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 359 - 309

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

359. NRAamy
3:00 PM GMT on June 15, 2011
351. iceagecoming 4:31 AM GMT on June 15, 2011
Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade

Physicists say sunspot cycle is 'going into hibernation'

By Lewis Page
Posted in Science, 14th June 2011 17:00 GMT






that's what I'm sayin'!!!!!!!!!
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
358. NRAamy
2:59 PM GMT on June 15, 2011
hey cb....

:)
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
357. cyclonebuster
2:45 PM GMT on June 15, 2011
Bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!Bwhaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Earth is cooling! Bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
356. cyclonebuster
2:43 PM GMT on June 15, 2011
Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
355. cyclonebuster
2:37 PM GMT on June 15, 2011
Meanwhile Arctic Ice melts at near record pace this summer again. Sounds like the Earth is really cooling off. LOL!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
354. atmoaggie
2:32 PM GMT on June 15, 2011
Quoting yonzabam:
Well, that scuppers the main theory of AGW deniers, that increased global temperatures are due to an increase in solar output.

It'll be interesting to see what kind of contortions they attempt to explain both increasing global temperatures and decreasing solar output.

I'm sure they'll come up with something, though.
What does? (Maybe someone I've iggy'ed?)

Either way, I see many folks assuming that any change in TSI is instantly realized in the near-surface atmospheric temperature. Do you know of any published articles confirming this? Or discussion of a lag time for changes in heat deposited in the oceans to be realized in lower-atmosphere or surface temperatures?

I don't honestly know the answer. I'd like to.

Seems that the instant scenario is a huge assumption. And, as the saying goes, assumption is the mother of all something. (*scratch head* Nah, that's good enough.)
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
353. yonzabam
12:54 PM GMT on June 15, 2011
Well, that scuppers the main theory of AGW deniers, that increased global temperatures are due to an increase in solar output.

It'll be interesting to see what kind of contortions they attempt to explain both increasing global temperatures and decreasing solar output.

I'm sure they'll come up with something, though.
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2925
352. Snowlover123
10:57 AM GMT on June 15, 2011
Quoting CatfishJones:


327 and 338... great posts.


Thanks! :)

There were actually many more NASA scientists than that, skeptical of AGW, (one of them was atmospheric scientist Dr. Theon, as Ice Age just posted.)
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
351. iceagecoming
4:31 AM GMT on June 15, 2011
Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade

Physicists say sunspot cycle is 'going into hibernation'

By Lewis Page
Posted in Science, 14th June 2011 17:00 GMT

What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.

The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun's recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.

The Sun normally follows an 11-year cycle of activity. The current cycle, Cycle 24, is now supposed to be ramping up towards maximum strength. Increased numbers of sunspots and other indications ought to be happening: but in fact results so far are most disappointing. Scientists at the NSO now suspect, based on data showing decades-long trends leading to this point, that Cycle 25 may not happen at all.





This could have major implications for the Earth's climate. According to a statement issued by the NSO, announcing the research:

An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715.

As NASA notes:

Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.

During the Maunder Minimum and for periods either side of it, many European rivers which are ice-free today – including the Thames – routinely froze over, allowing ice skating and even for armies to march across them in some cases.

"This is highly unusual and unexpected," says Dr Frank Hill of the NSO. "But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."

Next page: Good news for Mars astronauts – Less good for carbon traders


Link
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
349. Ossqss
3:31 AM GMT on June 15, 2011
Hummm, I leave you with these thoughts.

To blame one thing for all that is thought to occur is simply wrong.

Using fuel that emulates the properties of a battery vs. that of which is necessary for daily life as we know it, is not wrong (stored vs. real time energy).

Look and see the impact of wind, dams, solar and the rest on this planet from a climatological stand point. You only have tid bits, don't you?

Do you think land use has an impact? Food is important, is it not?

How many things that you take for granted, actually have an impact. How big is you PCO2 footprint?

Do you think changing the water flow of a continent to provide electricity via dams changes the environment above and below the dam and the weather patterns and ultimately impacts climate ?

Look that up !

It has become quite obvious to the layman the propaganda on the environment is not vetted and is corrupt. Hence, the rejection of such.

Just look at the Kyoto protocol abandonment.

That was not an arbitrary decision. They knew the fallacy that was in play and have acted upon it.

Gnite ~


Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
348. iceagecoming
2:54 AM GMT on June 15, 2011


Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
347. iceagecoming
2:48 AM GMT on June 15, 2011
Theon, a former senior NASA atmospheric scientist, rebuked Hansen last month in a letter to the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, saying Hansen had violated NASA's official position on climate forecasting without sufficient evidence and embarrassed the agency by airing his claims before Congress in 1988.

"Why he has not been fired I do not understand," Theon said. "As a civil servant, you can't participate in calling for a public demonstration. You may be able to participate as a private citizen, but when you go on the Internet and call for people to break the law, that's a problem."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,501064,00.html #ixzz1PJ7tGFDG



November’s election made it quite clear that the people of the United States do not want to radically change our society in the name of global warming. Pretty much every close House race went to the Republicans, while the Democrats won all the Senate squeakers. The difference? The House on June 26, 2009, passed a bill limiting carbon-dioxide emissions and getting into just about every aspect of our lives. The Senate did nothing of the sort.

The nation’s most prominent publicly funded climatologist is officially angry about this, blaming democracy and citing the Chinese government as the “best hope” to save the world from global warming. He also wants an economic boycott of the U.S. sufficient to bend us to China’s will.

NASA laboratory head James Hansen’s anti-democracy rants were published while he was on a November junket in China, but they didn’t get much attention until recently. On Jan. 12, the hyperprolific blogger Marc Morano put them on his Climate Depot site, and within hours, the post went viral. In a former life, Mr. Morano was chief global-warming researcher for Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican.

According to Mr. Hansen, compared to China, we are “the barbarians” with a “fossil-money- ‘democracy’ that now rules the roost,” making it impossible to legislate effectively on climate change. Unlike us, the Chinese are enlightened, unfettered by pesky elections. Here’s what he blogged on Nov. 24

“I have the impression that Chinese leadership takes a long view, perhaps because of the long history of their culture, in contrast to the West with its short election cycles. At the same time, China has the capacity to implement policy decisions rapidly. The leaders seem to seek the best technical information and do not brand as a hoax that which is inconvenient.”

Has this guy ever heard of the Gang of Four? Or the Cultural Revolution, which killed those who were inconvenient? Or the Great Leap Forward, which used the best technical information to determine that a steel mill in every backyard was a good idea?

Mr. Hansen has another idea to circumvent our democracy. Because Congress is not likely to pass any legislation making carbon-based energy prohibitively expensive, he proposed, in the South China Morning Post, that China lead a boycott of our economy:

“After agreement with other nations, e.g., the European Union, China and these nations could impose rising internal carbon fees. Existing rules of the World Trade Organization would allow collection of a rising border duty on products from all nations that do not have an equivalent internal carbon fee or tax.

“The United States then would be forced to make a choice. It could either address its fossil-fuel addiction … or … accept continual descent into second-rate and third-rate economic well-being.”

The WTO, in fact, has not “ruled” that it can impose environmental tariffs of any kind, much less those of such magnitude that they would destroy the world’s largest economy.

Mr. Hansen is just dreaming here. But that’s not surprising. He has been very creative over the years.

In 1988, he reportedly told Bob Reiss, author of yet another apocalyptic screed, “The Coming Storm,” that in the next 20 years, “The West Side Highway [in Manhattan] will be under water” and, “There will be more police cars” in New York because “well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

Well, there are more cops and less crime, and the West Side is high and dry. One out of three isn’t bad for baseball, but it is horrendous for science.

Link
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
346. iceagecoming
2:24 AM GMT on June 15, 2011
Quoting yonzabam:


Yeh, people who send an orbiter to Titan are obviously scientifically unqualified.


Many people work at Nasa, some more qualified than
others, some that don't belong at all.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
345. CatfishJones
1:43 AM GMT on June 15, 2011
Quoting Snowlover123:


And the crickets begin to chirp... :)


327 and 338... great posts.
Member Since: May 30, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 246
343. NRAamy
11:04 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
I think ManBearPig streaked the main blog....
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
342. NRAamy
11:03 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
336. CatfishJones 9:46 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
Quoting McBill:

No, you were very specific. I quote, "Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy designed satellites that measure Earth's temperatures."

You were also very wrong.





And you, sir, are reminiscent of a Troll whom makes jabs and veritably pukes on people's mistakes (however few there are in comparison to their valid input), but is absolutely silent about everything else.




ding ding ding! give that man a cigar!!!
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
340. NRAamy
11:01 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
hey Rusty...

:)
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
338. Snowlover123
9:58 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
Oh... and according to Fall et. al 2011, the best sited stations do not have a diurnal (difference between day-time night-time temperatures) century warming trend.

Texas State Climatologist Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon explains...


Our paper has a lot of info and analysis about temperatures and temperature trends and their correspondence to siting class. Perhaps the most important question, %u201CIs the mean temperature trend different from previous estimates?%u201D is answered in the negative, albeit with an asterisk associated with the limited scope of the study. While negative results are useful, they%u2019re also boring. So in this post I%u2019ll talk about something we did learn about the climate that%u2019s new and different, and why I think it matters.


This new finding is stated succinctly in the abstract as: %u201CAccording to the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend.%u201D

The diurnal temperature range is simply the difference between the daily maximum temperature and daily minimum temperature, %u201Cdiurnal%u201D being a more impressive way of saying %u201Cdaily%u201D. It%u2019s conventionally abbreviated DTR.



The change in global DTR trends roughly coincides with the change in phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, for example, so it%u2019s hard to tell whether the DTR trends were natural or forced.

That%u2019s where Fall et al. 2011 comes in. The figure below shows the change in DTR anomalies over time over the United States, as estimated using data from each of the four classes of station siting. The data goes all the way back to 1895, making this (as far as we know) the longest evaluation of regional DTR trends done anywhere.



Dotted lines represent average values and are plotted 1.5 C apart from each other
All four classes of stations show the decline from the 1950s through the 1970s. But if you take a broader view, you see that the black line, representing the estimate from the best-sited stations, has a long-term positive (!) trend using unadjusted data or time-of-observation adjusted data, and has no trend at all for fully adjusted data (top set of curves). The lower-quality siting classes all show a negative long-term trend, and the worse the siting, the larger the trend.

These results suggest that the DTR in the United States has not decreased due to global warming, and that analyses to the contrary were at least partly contaminated by station siting problems. Indeed, DTR tended to increase when temperatures were fairly stable and tended to decrease when temperatures rose. Maybe DTR really isn%u2019t a robust signal of global warming, and maybe the discrepancy between models and observations is primarily a problem with the observations rather than the models!

I%u2019ve used the words %u201Csuggest%u201D and %u201Cmaybe%u201D here. That%u2019s because I regard our results as tentative. The zero trend estimate is based on only 80 stations, which might be only marginally adequate. The systematic change in trend with station siting quality makes me more confident, but the fact that the closest poorly-sited stations have a weak but positive DTR trend suggests that DTR may be strongly site-specific and makes me less confident. Maybe the best-sited stations have actually improved their siting over time, and maybe the adjustments haven%u2019t fully corrected for this. Because of all this, I think these results need to be confirmed through other means or in other parts of the world before I will wholeheartedly believe that the real DTR has not been decreasing.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
337. Snowlover123
9:50 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
Quoting RMuller:
I wonder what the responses will be to the NASA scientists' comments in the previous post.


And the crickets begin to chirp... :)
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
336. CatfishJones
9:46 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
Quoting McBill:

No, you were very specific. I quote, "Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy designed satellites that measure Earth's temperatures."

You were also very wrong.





And you, sir, are reminiscent of a Troll whom makes jabs and veritably pukes on people's mistakes (however few there are in comparison to their valid input), but is absolutely silent about everything else. I have yet to see you do anything but disagree. A glorified troll, regurgitating the work of others on a selective basis, with no positive input of his own to boot. I would welcome evidence to the contrary. Indeed I sit here hoping that you will provide me with some.
Member Since: May 30, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 246
335. Snowlover123
9:39 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
Quoting yonzabam:
So, how come most of the warming has been nocturnal?


Source?

Edit: Oh wait, I found this more than a decade old paper that supports this:

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/grasslan d_vegetation_changes_and.htm

This is not Global at all. Their data uses one station in the Central Plains.



What's weird is that, while Global Temperatures decreased from 1970-1977, the temperatures here, rapidly increased. This is likely due to rapid urbanization that took place there. Strangely, while temperatures started to rise in 1979, the temperatures flatlined here.

Another example, of why you can not base Global data off of one station.

By the way, satellites have measured the decrease in GCC, so I'm not sure what the paper is refering to by saying that Global GCC has increased.

This paper seems pretty fishy to me... unless you have another reference?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
334. Snowlover123
9:37 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
Quoting McBill:

No, you were very specific. I quote, "Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy designed satellites that measure Earth's temperatures."

You were also very wrong.





People do misspeak, McBill. I meant to say that they developed how to measure temperatures through satellites.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
333. CatfishJones
9:37 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
Quoting RMuller:


Thank you. I'll definitely obtain a copy. I suppose my point is that Mann and his cohorts are primarily responsible for the pro-AGW debate these days. If it can be proven that he was purposefully falsifying data with the use of tax dollars, perhaps he's guilty of more than simple deception.


Kelvin did the same thing against Darwin, trying to prove the age of the Earth with the laws of thermodynamics simply to refute him. Einstein dismissively told Lemaitre that "Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable." when Lemaitre attempted to give Einstein the solution to his "Biggest Blunder." (Measuring Eternity by Martin Gorst, ch.10-14)

(edit: I have a problem with not clarifying my point. The point in the preceding is that Gladiators battle with a variety of stabbing, slicing, bludgeoning, or otherwise unpleasant physical weapons while scientists and philosophers do so with their logic and rhetoric. Man will fight man. The instruments with which they do so are determined by their trade.)

Which is one of the reasons I like Dawkins. He admits when he is wrong. I should note that The Selfish Gene is primarily about evolutionary biology on the genetic level, but is still a must read. Especially in tandem with Lovelock's Gaia.
Member Since: May 30, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 246
329. yonzabam
9:09 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
So, how come most of the warming has been nocturnal?
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2925
327. Snowlover123
8:16 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
Quoting McBill:

Seriously? You don't know the difference between a satellite and a dataset?




Perhaps I should have been more specific: they developed how to measure temperatures through satellites.

Quoting McBill:

And you think you know more than the good folks at NASA.


And many of those "good folks at NASA" agree with my position.

Quote:

Physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, top administrator of NASA and former
head of the Space Department at Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory


"To assume that [global warming] is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today
is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to
take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.”
"I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of
deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for
all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.”

Hungarian scientist, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with NASA. Dr. Miskolczi
resigned his post over the agency’s lack of scientific freedom.

“My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new
climate change related scientific results.”
"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations."

Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor in
Ohio and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, holds a masters degree in Physical Chemistry.

“I freely admit I am a skeptic.”“I take umbrage in so-called ‘experts’ using data without checking their sources. My scientific
background taught me to question things that do not appear to be right.”
Speaking about Al Gore’s book, DeFayette called it“a political, not scientific, book. There is
absolutely no discussion about the world’s climate history, effects of the sun, other planets,
precession, eccentricity, etc.”
“In the 1600s scientists believed we lived in an earth-centered universe but Galileo disagreed and
proved we lived in a sun-centered universe. At the time of Columbus, the scientific consensus was
that the earth was flat but obviously that was wrong. In the late 18th century, ‘Neptunists’ were
convinced that all of the rocks of the Earth’s crust had been precipitated from water and Robert
Jameson, a British geologist, characterized the supporting evidence as ‘incontrovertible,’”
DeFayette wrote. “In each of these cases there was ‘scientific consensus’ that eventually was
rejected.... Until a few months ago, scientists believed we had 9 planets, but now we have 8
because Pluto was demoted.”

Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's
Marshall Space Flight Center, received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal,
principal research scientist at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center of the National Space
Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

"The one atmospheric process that has the greatest control on the Earth's climate is the one we
understand the least - precipitation.”
"In fact, for the amount of solar energy available to it, our climate seems to have a ‘preferred'
average temperature, damping out swings beyond one degree or so. I believe that, through various
negative feedback mechanisms, the atmosphere ‘decides' how much of the available sunlight will
be allowed in, how much greenhouse effect it will generate in response, and what the average
temperature will be."
Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA's Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility

"My belief is the planetary climate system is an ever changing and evolving one. The climate and
geological state of the earth did not develop to this point and time and stop the clock.”
"The climate and the shape of our continents will continue to change. Yes we are in a cycle of
warming, and we should protect our planet from pollution, but we will continue to go through
cycles and changes no matter what. In the future there will be another cooling phase as our climate
continues to take its sinusoidal trek through history."


Aerospace Engineer and Physicist Dirck T. Hartmann, worked on NASA Apollo Space Program.

“[Water vapor] has a greater effect than all other greenhouse gases combined but, since it cannot be
regulated, is rarely mentioned as a greenhouse gas.”
“Our mainstream media uses every opportunity to hype the hoax of manmade global warming by
repeated reporting of data and events that appear to support it and ignoring those that contradict it.”
Hopefully man made global warming will come to be recognized for the hoax it truly is.”

Physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Centre, member of the
space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, member of a NASA
working group, and member of the European Space Agency.

"The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls
weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth's surface will
therefore affect climate. During stable conditions there has to be a balance between the energy
received from the sun and the energy that the Earth radiates back into Space. This energy is mainly
radiated in the form of long wave radiation corresponding to the mean temperature of the Earth."

“The Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.”

Iowa State Climatologist Dr. Elwynn Taylor, Professor of Meteorology at Iowa State University,
former project scientist with NASA

“We wonder now if there was ever a time when there was no glacier on top of Greenland at all.
Geologists say yes – a short 3 million years ago we didn't have any permanent year-round ice on
the planet. These things come and go in natural cycles."


Jack Schmitt, Award-winning NASA astronaut, geologist, and moonwalker, flew on the Apollo 17
mission, formerly with the Norwegian Geological Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over
American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.”

Dr. Klaus P. Heiss, Princeton University, NASA, the US Atomic Energy Commission, and the
Office of Naval Research, received the NASA Public Service award for unique contributions to the
US Space Program, and member of the International Astronautics Academy.

“The 20th Century increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continuously.
Man-made CO 2 grew exponentially; however, global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1975,
during the time span as the global industrial production almost exploded. Then [temperatures] rose
strongly to 1990 and they have since stagnated, with the exception of El-Nino 1998 – at roughly
the same level, although CO 2 emissions are still rising,”
“Carbon dioxide is not responsible for the warming of the global climate over the last 150 years.
But what then? For more than 90 percent are changes in the Earth-Sun relationship to the climate
fluctuations. One is the sun's activities themselves, such as the recently discovered 22-year-cycles
and sunspots,”
“Looking at the climate history of our planet, it is clear to see - and quite reassuring with regard to
the possible consequences of global warming as predicted by the IPCC -- that we are now (more
precisely, in the last two to three million years ago) in a very cold climate period. Any warming
would give us only the best long-term climate of the last 560 million years back....Most
professional economic studies indicate that warmer times are generally better.”
(translated)

Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal.

"The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the sun and its effect on the Earth as it
moves about in its orbit, not from man-made activities."
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
325. Snowlover123
7:59 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
Well, I have to get going, so I will be back soon.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
324. Snowlover123
7:58 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
More evidence that the AGW theory does not stack up at all?

Abstract:

Widespread empirical evidence suggests that extraterrestrial forcing influences the Earth’s climate, but how this could occur remains unclear. Here we describe a new approach to this problem that unifies orbital, solar and lunar forcing based on their common control of the Earth’s latitudinal insolation gradient (LIG). The LIG influences the climate system through differential solar heating between the tropics and the poles that gives rise to the latitudinal temperature gradient (LTG), which drives the Earth’s atmospheric and (wind driven) ocean circulation. We use spectral analysis of recent changes in the Earth’s LTG to support earlier work on orbital timescales (Davis and Brewer, 2009) that suggests the climate system may be unusually sensitive to changes in the LIG. Identification of LIG forcing of the LTG is possible because the LIG varies according to seasonally specific periodicities based on obliquity in summer (41 kyr orbital and 18.6 yr lunar cycle), and precession (21 kyr orbital cycle) and total solar irradiance (11 yr solar cycle) in winter. We analyse changes in the Northern Hemisphere LTG over the last 120 years and find significant (99%) peaks in spectral frequencies corresponding to 11 years in winter and 18.6 years in summer, consistent with LIG forcing. The cross-seasonal and multi-frequency nature of the LIG signal, and the diffuse effect of the LTG driver on the climate system may account for the complexity of the response to extraterrestrial forcing as seen throughout the climatic record. This hypersensitivity of the LTG to the LIG appears poorly reproduced in climate models, but would be consistent with the controversial theory that the LTG is finely balanced to maximise entropy.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
322. Snowlover123
7:53 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:

Lots of good new info coming out of the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society today.

http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower -solar-activity-solar-cycle.html


Just beat you to it. :P
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
321. Snowlover123
7:53 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
Quoting McBill:

So, given that neither Spencer nor Christy actually designed any satellites, does that make them not so credible?




Really?


The UAH satellite temperature dataset, developed at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, attempts to infer the temperature of the atmosphere at various levels from satellite measurements of radiance.

It was one of the first global temperature datasets developed from satellite information and has been used as a tool for research since the 1990s. It has proved controversial as, previously, there were inconsistencies between the UAH dataset and surface measurements. Significant corrections during the late 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s, have resolved many of those differences.

The dataset is published by John Christy et al. and formerly jointly with Roy Spencer.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
320. Ossqss
7:49 PM GMT on June 14, 2011

Lots of good new info coming out of the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society today.

http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower -solar-activity-solar-cycle.html
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
318. Snowlover123
7:47 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
This is interesting...

Quote:

What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.


Ice skating on the Thames by 2025?
The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun's recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.
The Sun normally follows an 11-year cycle of activity. The current cycle, Cycle 24, is now supposed to be ramping up towards maximum strength. Increased numbers of sunspots and other indications ought to be happening: but in fact results so far are most disappointing. Scientists at the NSO now suspect, based on data showing decades-long trends leading to this point, that Cycle 25 may not happen at all.
This could have major implications for the Earth's climate. According to a statement issued by the NSO, announcing the research:

An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
317. Snowlover123
7:43 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
Quoting McBill:

Well, none of us have looked at the "facts" about climate change like you have.




Evidently not, or else some wouldn't have used GISS data, which is filled with errors and missing data.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
316. Snowlover123
7:41 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
Another blow to the AGW theory...

Dr. David Stockwell who has a PhD in Environmental Sciences submitted a recent paper, that shows that solar activity alone, could explain Global Warming. I believe that GCC has more of an impact than the sun, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Quote:
Finally, my hibernation of the last 6 months is coming to an end, with the formal submission to a journal yesterday of the fruits of my labor. The main points:
1. solar forcing is time-integrated and not direct,
2. accumulation of the 0.1W/m2 increase in solar irradiance in the 20th century explains global warming,
3. there is a credible explanation for global warming that does not involve increases in human emissions of greenhouse gasses.



Figure: Cumulative solar irradiance (blue) and volcanic forcing (red) is highly correlated with HadCRU global temperature and explains the trend in temperature since 1950. The direct solar irradiance (orange) is uncorrelated with temperature.
There are a lot of other points about the model that no doubt I will get into in time. For the moment, here is the Conclusion.
Contrary to the consensus view, the historic temperature record displays high sensitivity to solar variations when related by slow equilibration dynamics. A range of results suggest that incorrect specification of the relationship between forcings and temperature may be at the heart of previous studies finding low correlations of solar variation to temperature. The accumulation model is a credible alternative mechanism for explaining both paleoclimatic temperature variability and present-day warming without recourse to increases in heat-trapping gases produced by human activities. The grounds on which a solar explanation for late 20th century warming is dismissed should be reconsidered.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
314. Snowlover123
7:34 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
Quoting yonzabam:


Yeh, people who send an orbiter to Titan are obviously scientifically unqualified.


So their data must be good... because they sent satellites to Saturn's moon!

Sending satellites to Saturn's moon or not is completely irrelevant to know if their temperature data for Earth has errors such as homogenization or not.

Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy designed satellites that measure Earth's temperatures. I guess they must be credible as well.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
313. Ossqss
7:33 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
Quoting McBill:

Did you even read Fall et al? Because I'm not really seeing any of these issues addressed in the paper. It really just looks like a list that you copied from some denialist web site somewhere.

So, I'll ask again, you got something published - as in published in a credible journal - that cast serious doubt on the GISS temperature database, please share.



I did read it and found it quite enlightening in many respects. I have not been indoctrinated however, and that does make a difference with respect to perception, logic, and having an opened mind.


Here have fun with this related GISS item, ironically from today.


"Thus, according to the GISS model predictions, there should have been approximately 5.36 * 10**22 Joules more heat in the upper 700 meters of the global ocean at the end of 2010 than were present at the beginning of 2003.

For the observations to come into agreement with the GISS model prediction by the end of 2012, for example, there would have to be an accumulation 6.7 * 10** 22 Joules of heat over just the next 1 1/2 years. This requires a heating rate over the next 1 1/2 years into the upper 700 meters of the ocean corresponding to a radiative imbalance of ~4 Watts per square meter."

2011 Update Of The Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
312. yonzabam
7:30 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
Quoting Snowlover123:


And with all of the errors listed above, it is so remarkable that some of the posters here actually take the NASA GISS data seriously.


Yeh, people who send an orbiter to Titan are obviously scientifically unqualified.
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2925
311. Snowlover123
7:22 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:


LoL, selective memory eh?

On your GISS item, the following comes to mind

1,200 KM smoothing

Homogenization of data

Extrapolation of data

Huge holes in coverage

Multiple alterations/corrections to past and present data sets

You want to run our lives based upon the resulting interpretation of such? Nope!



And with all of the errors listed above, it is so remarkable that some of the posters here actually take the NASA GISS data seriously.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
310. Snowlover123
7:16 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
Quoting yonzabam:


Oh, really? Try the NASA dataset:


With respect to the 1951-80 average:

91 0.35C warmer
92 0.13
93 0.13
94 0.23
95 0.37
96 0.29
97 0.39
98 0.56
99 0.32
00 0.33 Average for the decade 0.31C warmer than the 1951-80 average.


01 0.47
02 0.56
03 0.55
04 0.48
05 0.63
06 0.55
07 0.58
08 0.44
09 0.58
10 0.63 Average for the decade 0.55C warmer than the 1951-80 average




You don't know why I used Hadcrut instead of GISS... right...?



It's because the GISS has absolutely no data for the Arctic, at all.

Hansen himself has even admitted that the only reason for why the NASA dataset (which was one of the only datasets) that had 2005 as the warmest year, included guesstimated data for the Arctic.

Quote:

GISS analysis yields 2005 as the warmest calendar year, while
the HadCRUT analysis has 1998 as the warmest year. The main factor is our inclusion of estimated temperature change for the Arctic region.

HadCrut has more data for the Arctic than the GISS, and it was cooler than the GISS' smoothed version. Why is this so?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
309. Snowlover123
7:11 PM GMT on June 14, 2011
Quoting yonzabam:
If you think that current climate change is due to 'natural variation', rather than anthropogenic greenhouse gases, you ought to say what particular factor you believe is driving temperatures upwards. It will have to be consistent with the observations that the stratosphere has cooled (although some claim ozone depletion explains this) and that most of the warming so far is attributable to an increase in night time minima.



Excellent question.

I used to believe that Greenhouse Gases were the primary driver of the Climate. This was before I looked at the actual facts. I also am switching my belief on the Climate system, slightly. I used to believe that oceans were the primary driver of the Climate, but now I believe that changes in GCC are the primary drivers of the climate. The oceans have noticeable influence on the Climate, but are not the primary drivers of the climate.

The AGW assumption is based off of the notion that increased Carbon dioxide would then produce an increase in Temperature. But many prominent scientists, including renowned physicist Dr. Miklos Zagoni are realizing that this notion contradicts energy balance formulas.

Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi has published recent papers that show it is impossible for Carbon Dioxide to create "Catastrophic Global Warming."

The reason being, as seen in a fairly recent Peer Reviewed paper, is that Natural Changes in Global Cloud Cover have three times the impact on surface temperatures, than Greehouse Gas Emissions.

In order for an object to keep constant temperature, energy in = energy out. The warming since 1979 indicates that there is an energy imbalance in the Earth's Climate System.

Overall, Outgoing Longwave Radiation, or (OLR) has been increasing slightly. This contradicts the CAGW belief that increased GHGs would reduce Outgoing Longwave Radiation, therefore warming the Earth.




The slight increase in Outgoing Longwave Radiation is consistant with reductions in Global Cloud Cover, or (GCC) since 1979, since Decreased Cloud Cover creates an increase in OLR, since Clouds trap OLR.




However, the net effect of all clouds being removed, would actually create warming. This is because the clouds reflect more incoming energy, than they trap outgoing energy.


Quoting Climate4you.com

The overall reflectance (albedo) of planet Earth is about 30 percent, meaning that about 30 percent of the incoming shortwave solar radiation is radiated back to space. If all clouds were removed, the global albedo would decrease to about 15 percent, and the amount of shortwave energy available for warming the planet surface would increase from 239 W/m2 to 288 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). However, the longwave radiation would also be affected, with 266 W/m2 being emitted to space, compared to the present 234 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). The net effect of removing all clouds would therefore still be an increase in net radiation of about 17 W/m2. So the global cloud cover has a clear overall cooling effect on the planet, even though the net effect of high and low clouds are opposite (see figure above). This is not a pure theoretical consideration, but is demonstrated by observations (see diagram below).



So therefore, since OLR has been increasing by the order of several Watts per Meter squared since 1979, indicates that Global Warming is being caused by increases in Incoming Radiation from decreasing Cloud Cover. This is contrary to the claim by CAGW Proponents that OLR should be decreasing. This would also increase the Outgoing Energy, as observed, since less Cloud Cover would create Outgoing Energy. Since the Outgoing Energy is less than the incoming energy, the Earth warms.

In conclusion, the Earth has been warming due to natural changes in GCC, not Increased Carbon Dioxide.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699

Viewing: 359 - 309

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
57 °F
Mostly Cloudy