Category Archives: CO2

Skeptical Scientists Effectively Challenge IPCC Climate Change Report


The IPCC has issued the 2013 report on global Climate change.  The skeptic community has effectively challenged the IPCC primary positions.   This post will provide a broad selection of those challenges for the reader to examine.   Each of the 18  entries will give you the title, a brief synopsis, and the link to that document.

The IPCC failed on two major issues.  Their failed to explain why global temperatures have not increased in the past 16 years despite a continued growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).   The second issue is that of climate sensitivity.  They did say that in the past, they had overestimated climate sensitivity but did not tell us what they now believe it to be. This posting will also cover climate model performance and should the IPCC be discontinued.

GLOBAL TEMPERATURES

Continue reading

How Credible Is The IPCC Climate Reporting?


The Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has issued their 2013 report “Climate Change Reconsidered II-Physical Science”.  This report, a Summary for Policy Makers (SMP), challenges the data within the IPCC’s SMP scheduled for release this month.

Let’s contrasts the two reports.  The NIPCC science is empirical data based.  The IPCC also includes empirical data but their methodology relies heavily  on computer based guesses projections,  the scientific conclusion are revised to satisfy political objectives and the IPCC is not home to scientists that want to submit studies that contradict the message that global warming is man-made.  NIPCC says this about the IPCC: “The hypothesis implicit in all IPCC writings, though rarely explicitly stated, is that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.”   They start with a conclusion and look for studies that support the conclusion.  That’s not the the scientific method.

Continue reading

It Is Better To Adapt Than Mitigate CO2 Emission-Mitigation Is 50X More Costly


Paraphrasing Hamlet, “Is it better to mitigate CO2 emissions from sources such as fossil fuels or adapt to global changes that might happen if emissions were not regulated?  Ah that’s the question.”

hamlet220px-Edwin_Booth_Hamlet_1870

Continue reading

Political Class Does Not Care If Climate Science Is Wrong


If you are a skeptic you may think that you are winning the science battle with the warmers.  You probably have always thought that in the end you would win that battle and that would settle things.  You were half right, you are winning the science battle but you have not yet deterred the politicians.   The science has never mattered much to them.  The warmer’s programs to combat  “global warming are really the only things that matter to them.  Whether it is Cap & Trade, Carbon tax, or some other scheme, they are for it.  They tell you they are doing this for your own good.  But in fact most of them want greater control of your life and they can do it through taxes and regulations that are at the heart of these schemes.

Continue reading

IPCC Draft Of The “Summary For Policy Makers” Leaked


The hype around the soon to be released UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policy Makers  (SPM) does make me a little ill.   The last such report was issued in 2007 and it does not seem that the assemblers of the report have learned much in that time.  It is not that they have completely ignored reality but just mostly ignored it.

Continue reading

Forecasting Solar Cycle 25 Using The Solar Polar Field Strength


Forecasting the strength of Solar Cycle 25 will not  be easy.  The expert’s track record for their Cycle 24 predictions show how hard it is.   For example, Doctor David Hathaway is quoted in December 2006 that cycle 24 would “be one of the most intense since record keeping began 400 years ago.”   He forecast 160+/- 25 as the peak Smoothed International Sunspot Number (SISN). His prediction as charted in 2006 below:

hathaway2billsunspot_med

Continue reading

There Is A Difference Between “Warm” And “Warming”


The National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released its State of the Climate in 2012: Highlights on August 2. The report says:

Many of the events that made 2012 such an interesting year are part of the long-term trends we see in a changing and varying climate—carbon levels are climbing, sea levels are rising, Arctic sea ice is melting, and our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place,” said acting NOAA Administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D.   

The report itemizes those things from which they have developed the theme that the planet is becoming a warmer place. The first on the list was this one:

Warm temperature trends continue near Earth’s surface: Four major independent datasets show 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record, ranking either 8th or 9th, depending upon the dataset used. The United States and Argentina had their warmest year on record.  

Now you are forgiven if you interpret that item as saying that the Earth is getting warmer, and indeed most of the media jumped to that conclusion.  But what are the facts?  Look at the HadCrut* temperature chart for the period from 1998 to 2012 that NOAA made this claim:

Continue reading

Svensmark Theory—Cosmic Rays Contribute To Lower Global Temperatures


The previous posting closed with: Low Sunspot numbers and low F 10.7 indicate low solar activity.  How this activity translates to cooler weather is not clear.  The correlation between low activity and cooler weather has been know for several hundred year (or perhaps longer— recently read that the Chinese recorded Sunspot numbers many century’s ago and reported this correlation.)

One possible explanation is the Svensmark theory. This theory begins with high energy galactic cosmic rays (GCR) entering the Earth’s atmosphere where they collide with atmospheric molecules of oxygen. The collisions shatter the molecules and the resulting particles become nuclei for cloud droplets from which clouds are formed. Clouds reflect a significant amount of the Sun’s radiation back into space.  The weaker the Sun’s magnetic field (low solar activity),  the more GCR enter the atmosphere.  The more clouds, the more cooling.   This is opposed to the situation where the Sun’s activity is high, fewer GCR result in fewer clouds.

Continue reading

Study Forecasts Sea Level Rise That Is 10X Actual Rise In Last Century


A recent study “Rapid Accumulation of Committed Sea-level Rise from Global Warming” asserts that some 1700 US cities and towns will be below sea level by 2100. The study was authored by Benjamin H Strauss for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  The study is behind a paywall.  Dr Don J Easterbrook has reviewed the claim and he has spelled out his thinking in a Climate Depot posting. (Those views will constitute the body of this posting.)  Easterbrook says:

The accelerated rise is based on postulated accelerated warming but there has been no warming in the past 15 years and, in fact, the climate has cooled during that time. So no climatic warming means no accelerated sea level rise as postulated by Strauss…the huge rise of sea level rates proposed by Strauss are absurd and that the maximum sea level rise by 2100 will be less than one foot.”

Continue reading

Climate Cycles-Part 2 Earth’s Obital Cycles Control Glacial Periods


There are several theories for the cause of glacial periods–Cycles of glaciers followed by  interglacial warm periods and then repeating that cycle. Of those theories, the Milankovitch Cycles theory seems to have a broad base of adherents who believe it to have the best answer that question.   The Milankovitch theory has some weaknesses.  So this posting remains skeptical, however, it appears that there are good reasons why it is probably the most accepted theory.  That Richard Lindzen is a supporter of the theory is one of the good reasons.

The Milankovitch theory says that moving in and out of glacial periods is a result of variation in the Earth’s orbit and orientation.  Three parameters—Earth’s eccentric orbit around the Sun, the planet’s axial tilt and the procession of its axis are the basis of the theory.   These parameters are pretty well defined.   The coincidence with certain combinations of the three parameters and the paleohistory of glacial periods is reasonably close.   A posting by Doug Hoffman on his blog, the Resilient Earth “Confirmed! Orbital Cycles Control Ice Ages” is very good.  I could not say it as well, so this posting  will lift much from his.  

 

From Hoffman’s posting:

Earth’s orbit goes from measurably elliptical to nearly circular in a cycle that takes around 100,000 years. Presently, Earth is in a period of low eccentricity, about 3%. This causes a seasonal change in solar energy of 7%. The difference between summer and winter is a 7% difference in the energy a hemisphere receives from the Sun. When Earth’s orbital eccentricity is at its peak (~9%), seasonal variation reaches 20-30%. Additionally, a more eccentric orbit will change the length of seasons in each hemisphere by changing the length of time between the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. (Click on the Chart to enlarge.)

relisearthEccentricity_Obliquity_Precession-noaa_dlh-500

Variation in Axial Obliquity, Orbital Eccentricity, and Polar Precession.NOAA.

Continue reading