RIP: Man-Made Global Warming Fears 1988-2008

dissident · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 08, 2006 Posts: 420

The Goebbels or Rove school of propaganda, take your pick, is behind the incessant repetition of the solar variability tune. The solar constant variation is in the *short* wavelength bands that get absorbed primarily above 30 km (i.e. UV, EUV, Lyman-alpha). The solar flux that dominates the temperature budget of the troposphere, the visible band, does not vary more than 0.01%. Thanks to the high frequency part of the spectrum the solar constant varies by 0.1% during the solar cycle. It is the thermalization of absorbed visible band radiation by the surface that heats the troposphere and not the high frequency radiation.

If the temperature was slaved to solar variability then how does one explain the trend in the last 50 years? Denialists should try harder to come up with more than just infantile inanities.

Zardoz

Once again, it's fascinating to watch the denialists struggle and scramble and scrape to come up with rationales for the events that are unfolding all around them at ever-increasing speed.

Like Groucho Marx said: "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"
_________________
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen

Ludi

Got this today from the American Physical Society:

For Immediate Release Contact: Tawanda W. Johnson
Press Secretary
American Physical Society
Tel: 202-662-8702
Email: tjohnson@aps.org

American Physical Society Reaffirms Its Position that Human-Caused Greenhouse Gas Emissions Contribute to Climate Change

WASHINGTON, DC, July 22, 2008 -- The American Physical Society http://www.aps.org/ (APS) today reaffirmed its position on climate change issued last November, releasing the following statement:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

“Global warming and energy use have been on the minds of many Americans for quite some time. Recognizing the importance of these issues, the governing body of the American Physical Society announced its position on Climate Change on November 18, 2007. The Society’s position has not changed, and APS remains engaged in this issue that has considerable international consequences.

“APS is reaffirming its policy on global warming because an article at odds with the official APS position recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. This newsletter is not a scientific journal of the APS, and it is not peer reviewed.

“Online reports erroneously implied an APS policy change. These reports did not include the disclaimer, ‘Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum,’ which was attached to the newsletter article.”

Read the full APS Council statement on climate change:
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm (http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm).

About APS
The American Physical Society is the world’s leading professional body of physicists, representing more than 46,000 physicists in academia and industry in the U.S. and internationally. It has offices in College Park, Md., Ridge, N.Y., and Washington, D.C.
# # #
_________________
No original ideas are contained in this post.

Zardoz

xarkz

Heineken

Vogelzang · Heavy Crude Joined: Jul 03, 2008 Posts: 110

The Senate Republicans are putting the final nails in the coffin of the global warming scam. Capitalism wins. The green anti-capitalists lose forever.

[Note: Below is opening statement of Senator Inhofe from today’s hearing “Full Committee hearing entitled, “An Update on the Science of Global Warming and its Implications.” Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer was one of the scientists testifying. –To read Dr. Spencer’s testimony see below detailing new studies showing “mostly natural” climate influences. ]
Senator Inhofe: ‘Numerous peer-reviewed studies, analyses and prominent scientists continue to speak out to refute many conclusions of the IPCC’
Senator Inhofe Excerpt: Numerous peer-reviewed studies, analyses and prominent scientists continue to speak out to refute many conclusions of the IPCC. I have documented in the past how the consensus on the “science is settled” debate has been challenged, and in many cases, completely refuted, from the hockey stick, to the Stern Review, to the IPCC backtracking on conclusive physical links between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity. Just this past week, a major new study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics that finds worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response' to oceans, and not carbon dioxide. There have also been recent challenges by Russian scientists to the very idea that carbon dioxide is driving Earth’s temperature and a report from India challenging the so-called “consensus.” The Physics and Society Forum, a unit within the American Physical Society, published a new paper refuting the IPCC conclusions where the editor conceded there is a ‘considerable presence' of global warming skeptics within the scientific community. More and more prominent scientists continue to speak out and dissent from man made global warming. In June, the Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever, declared himself a “skeptic” and said “global warming has become a new religion.” Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanna Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology also dissented in 2008. “As a scientist I remain skeptical” of climate fears, Dr. Simpson said in February of this year. In June, a top UN IPCC Japanese Scientist, Dr. Kiminori Itoh, turned on the IPCC and called man-made global warming fears the “worst scientific scandal in the history.” In addition, more evidence of challenges to global warming occurred when two top hurricane scientists announced they were reconsidering their views on global warming and hurricanes. As the normal scientific process continues to evolve and models continue to improve, there have many more instances documented that are positive developments, which should be embraced, rather than ridiculed or immediately attacked by the media or policymakers. It is my hope that as more and more of these researchers speak out, scientific objectivity and integrity can be restored to the field of global warming research.

http://tinyurl.com/57w4n3

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA: New Study Finds ‘warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural’ (Spencer is currently Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center University of Alabama in Huntsville
Spencer’s Testimony Excerpt: On the subject of the Administration’s involvement in policy-relevant scientific work performed by government employees in the EPA, NASA, and other agencies, I can provide some perspective based upon my previous experiences as a NASA employee. For example, during the Clinton-Gore Administration I was told what I could and could not say during congressional testimony. Since it was well known that I am skeptical of the view that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are mostly responsible for global warming, I assumed that this advice was to help protect Vice President Gore’s agenda on the subject. […] Regarding the currently popular theory that mankind is responsible for global warming, I am very pleased to deliver good news from the front lines of climate change research. Our latest research results, which I am about to describe, could have an enormous impact on policy decisions regarding greenhouse gas emissions. Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. […] If true, an insensitive climate system would mean that we have little to worry about in the way of manmade global warming and associated climate change. And, as we will see, it would also mean that the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural. Of course, if climate change is mostly natural then it is largely out of our control, and is likely to end -- if it has not ended already, since satellite-measured global temperatures have not warmed for at least seven years now. […] Based upon global oceanic climate variations measured by a variety of NASA and NOAA satellites during the period 2000 through 2005 we have found a signature of climate sensitivity so low that it would reduce future global warming projections to below 1 deg. C by the year 2100. […] Obviously, what I am claiming today is of great importance to the global warming debate and related policy decisions, and it will surely be controversial. These results are not totally unprecedented, though, as other recently published research6 has also led to the conclusion that the real climate system does not exhibit net positive feedback. […] I hope that the Committee realizes that, if true, these new results mean that humanity will be largely spared the negative consequences of human-induced climate change. This would be good news that should be celebrated -- not attacked and maligned. And given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research. This Committee could, at a minimum, make a statement that encourages that goal.

http://tinyurl.com/66uf2f

Zardoz · Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject: Re: Hippies lose, neocons win

joewp

Canuk

Climate change is not the only concern from changing the atmospheric mix. As I mentioned earlier in this thread we evolved during a period with a certain atmospheric mix. If we change that mix we cannot be certain what the results will be - by releasing stored CO2 do we want to return the earth to a period that favours other life forms - I think not.

efarmer · Heavy Crude Joined: Mar 17, 2006 Posts: 487

Well I dunno. The hippies are scattered around with long
ponytails hanging from the sides and backs of bald heads
and doing OK or not on a random and individual basis.
The Neocons on the other hand, may not believe in
Global Warming, but they sure have gotten a first hand
experience of regional warming in and around Washington
D.C. and are preparing to blow town as it has gotten too
hot for them to hang around.

Manifest Destiny has a way of making it's believers pull
off big boondoggles and then jump in the dumpster of
destiny with all of their peers.

Nice to see them holding a mirror while they harp about
Rogue Regime Rollback.

jbrovont · Intermediate Crude Joined: Jun 16, 2006 Posts: 675

Senate republicans may indeed be quoting new/revised research, but we can't tell from this, which is essentially "he said, she said." Post the relavant data and research as opposed to a politician's analysis of such, and we'll discuss that.

golem

Truth is...

At this point does not matter who or what caused the weather changes we are now seeing...
http://www.peakoil.com/post734824.html#734824

Cannot stop an avalanche that has already begun.
Or can ewe?
Rolling Eyes

namaste

golem
_________________
Universal asymmetry=swastiKA=spin
“A theory is more impressive the greater is the simplicity of its premise, the more different are the kinds of things it relates and the more extended its range of applicability…”
-Einstein

Lore