Category Archives: IPCC

Part 4 CO2 Causes What? The Amplification That Wasn’t There


The warmers know that CO2 by its self is insufficient to get the predicted temperature rises that they need to scare you with future weather of catastrophic proportions.   So they decided that there is a positive feedback that occurs.   The theory goes like this— For every little temperature increase resulting from CO2 interrupting thermal IR headed back into space, that interruption will cause some small amount of temperature increase which in turn will force more water vapor into the atmosphere. So this increase in water vapor, the big green house gas, absorbs more thermal IR and the temperature goes up.

The following illustration (by Dr. David Evans) begins with the increase in global temperature from a doubling (say 400ppm to 800 ppm) from “established science—1.1C. Then the warmer’s inferred amplification, will increase the temperature by 3 fold resulting in a final temperature increase of 3.3C. That is what the climate models produce and that is where the warmers get their scary scenarios.

CO2doublingandfeedbackevans_figure1

Figure 1 Amplification:

Continue reading

CO2 Causes What? Part 3–Greenhouse Effect


The Sun generates the energy that warms the Earth. The Sun’s extreme surface temperature (In the range of 9900 F (5500 C) results in the emission of electromagnetic radiation. (ER)  The ER most obvious to us is sunlight. But in addition, gamma rays, X-rays, and Ultraviolet are emitted and reach the Earth. This ER is called short wave because the wave length (crest to crest) is in meters 0.0000007 or shorter.

livingwithastarems510The above illustration shows the range of ER. All the way from Gamma rays to Radio waves. The most energetic are those from the Sun. In one second, light can travel 299,792kms (186,000 miles). All ER travel that same distance in a second. The difference between x-rays and radio waves is the amount of energy each contains. The shorter the wave length, the more energetic it is.

Continue reading

CO2 Causes What? Part 2—The Carbon Cycle


The theory of catastrophic anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (CAGW) as interpreted by a certain group (the warmers) is predicated on the idea that carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has the potential to do serious harm to the Earth. Their theory goes like this: Nature releases and then recaptures CO2, thus the atmospheric CO2 content is stable. They then add, largely, through the CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels , man has upset that balance and CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere. The chart below by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a representation of the “Carbon Cycle”.

CO2blogcarboncycleThe numbers on the chart are Giga tons of carbon on an annual basis. A giga ton is one billion tons, that is to say 1,000,000,000 tons.

According to this chart, every year the “gross global primary production and respiration” releases 119 giga tons and then takes in 120 giga for growing vegetation. The ocean’s emit 88 giga tons and absorb 90 giga tons. Fossil fuel combustion and other industrial processes emit 6.3 giga tons and have no returns. Land use changes are small at 1.7 emited and 1.9 returned. It also tells us that 730 giga tons of carbon are in the atmosphere.   In our last posting we related that the atmospheric CO2 is at 400ppm. That gives you some idea of how vast the Earth’s atmosphere is.

There are many drawings of the carbon cycle and they often have different numbers than the one shown above. But the idea is the same in all cases. The chart makers really are guessing at the numbers anyway. The fossil fuels number is the only one where data are largely available. So it is likely the best one. Another thing to know about this chart is that it is in tons of carbon. There are other sources of carbon such as methane, CH4. But because CO2 is the major carbon source you can read the chart as essentially a gross measure of CO2 for our purposes.

The net exchange by this chart results in an annual carbon accumulation of 4.1 giga tons into the atmosphere. The total from the chart of the emissions to the atmosphere are about 205 giga tons of which 8 giga tons are man-made or 4% of the total CO2 emissions. This raises the obvious question: if the big natural numbers (in blue) are no more than broad estimates, do we really know what is going on?

The next posting will examine a version of the Greenhouse Effect.

cbdakota

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CO2 Causes What? Part 1– How Much CO2 Is In The Atmosphere?


When a discussion of “greenhouse gases” takes place, one sometimes wonders if the reader is aware of the make up of the Earth’s atmosphere.   Many of you, especially the engineers and scientists that read this blog, know about the elements that make up the atmosphere and what the carbon cycle is. But for those that don’t have this background,  this may help.

The measured atmospheric CO2 is about 400 parts per million (ppm) at present. That means that for every 1,000,000 gas molecules in our atmosphere, about 400 of the gas molecules are carbon dioxide.

Continue reading

No Global Warming For 18 Years And 3 Months


GoreNo global warming for 18 years and 3 months.   The catastrophic global warming crowd knows this to be true. They have been working very hard at coming up with an explanation for the pause. In fact there are at least 52 (some say up to 70) published competing theories trying to understand why the temperature is not rising even though atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) continues to rise. The chart below, Figure 1, from  a WattsUpWithThat posting  by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley illustrates the flat global temperature:

notempchangeclip_image002_thumb

Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 3 months since October 1996

Monckton says:

The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas.

Read the full paper by clicking here.

cbdakota

Climate Cooling Predicted by New Solar Theory


Dr David Evans has proposed a new theory that he believes  demonstrates the link between the Sun’s total solar irradiance (TSI) and the Earth’s climate. The idea that TSI and the Earth’s Climate are linked is not a new or novel theory. Evan’s has built a computer program that provides a time delay between a change in TSI and the time that climate begins to respond. He believes the key to his program is the use of “notch filter” similar to those used in the communications industry to filter out “noise”.

He also is asking for peer review of this program via “crowd sourcing”.   Reading the comment sections of the sites where he has posted his theory and provided much of the coding, he certainly has been successful in getting comments.  At the time of my last survey,  the comments  he has received are mostly positive but some others are skeptical.

For this study, Evans derived a new transform that he calls the “optimal Fourier transform (OFT)” for this paper. This transform provides the “notch”.  One commenter suggested that the use of another type of Fourier transform would improve Evan’s program and appears that Evans agrees.   (I did take a course in Laplace Transforms, but not being an Electrical Engineer, I have forgotten what I learned. This comment is a way of letting the reader know that I am unable to intelligently comment on the math used in Evans’ program. )

 

WHY IT’S GOING TO COOL

“The reason for the cooling is the dramatic fall in solar radiation that started around 2004. Here is a graph of solar radiation since 1610, when sunspots were first recorded. The brown line is the solar radiation, and it peaks every 11 years or so because of the sunspot cycle. We put an 11-year smoother through it to give us the red line, which shows the trends in solar radiation.”    (Click on charts for improved clarity.)

EVANStotal-solar-irradiance-1.1

Figure 1

Evans says there have been three steep falls in TSI in the last 400 years and each of these falls have been accompanied by major global cooling.

That the global temperature has fallen in sync with the drop off of TSI appears to be an awfully good correlation. But many skeptics as well as warmers argue that it must have been for some other reason other than TSI because (look at the vertical axis) the total change in TSI is too little to be of consequence.

This blog has always proposed that the Sun is the major forcing agent in global climate. Perhaps the causation is not the TSI, but I continue to believe the something correlated to the Sun’s activity is the causation. Having said that, time to move back to Evans’ theory.

Continue reading

Reposting: “Didn’t Our Media Tell Us That Snow Was A Thing Of the Past?


Some of you may have noticed that I  have not posted since the middle of  November.  This is because I am tied up in a project that should be completed by the end of February.   Even so, I do occasionally find posting that I would normally have posted with comments.   The following is a posting by 21th Century Wire that I believe should be read.
cbdakota
DIDN’T OUR MEDIA TELL US THAT SNOW WAS A THING OF THE PAST?
JANUARY 10, 2014 BY  4 COMMENTS
Andrew McKillop
21st Century WireIt’s like we’re living in ancient pagan Greece or something.Only yesterday, British Prime Minister David Cameron insisted that the storms and floods causing havoc across his countrywere because climate change. Yes, that old chestnut.It’s one things for politicians to try and leverage public approval by flying the flimsy climate banner. You expect that. But no such leeway should be given to the media, as it is supposedly their job to inform the masses of facts, not mythologies.

Politically Correct ScienceLet’s trace this tragic tale to the beginning. Seemingly decades ago, not 13 years, the UK Independent newspaper started the new century with the goal of becoming a world leader in government-approved, corporate-friendly global warming propaganda. Its chief warmist and green scribe, Charles Onians, fired the first climate salvo in a March 20, 2000, in this leading article:“Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture”.The Independent was soon followed by other UK papers, US papers, and European papers, and their broadcast media, in a permanent propaganda blitz to take “the warming thing” to the ultimate limits of childlike hysteria and stark distortion using the uncertain science of “the CO2 hypothesis”. The propaganda onslaught was stamped with the “warmist” hallmark of elite condescension and smug conviction that ordinary mortals are much too stupid to understand this “scientifically proven” crisis.In what would become a typical example of “warmist” genre material, Charles Onians in 2000 cited David Viner, a researcher at the later-infamous climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia – the Home of the Hockey Stick – who told the unscientific masses that very soon “winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event”. And as for homeless sleeping in the gutter, not so many would die in the night – posing an existential crisis for English Middle Class Morality! By 2006, the UK Independent was regularly carrying junk science hysteria from ‘Gaia” author James Lovelock, a key example being his claim that “Billions of persons will die before the end of the century from global warming”. Since 2012, ‘Jim’ Lovelock has completely retracted and denied his warmist convictions, and tiptoed away from the train wreck of elite propaganda.Always Go FurtherAl Gore, chief promoter of the global warming scam with Rajendra Pachauri, always went further. Their propaganda onslaught mixed and mingled pure egoism with a frenetic drive to make millions for themselves and enrich their fellow conspirators, through an ultra-tenacious promotion of  any “carbon-linked” cash-grubbing scheme. Showing what the business press calls “initiative and drive”, they promoted anything ranging from investment and trading scams, through government tax and corporate subsidy scams, to lurid books, films and TV documentaries.THE CHURCH OF CLIMATE CHANGE: Gore and Pachauri guide the mass cult off their intellectual cliff.

Al Gore repeatedly said, in print, “the Arctic will be ice free by 2013”. Gore made this claim in print in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.

And it didn’t happen. In fact the Arctic ice cap’s surface area increased by more than 25% in 2012-2013. The much-larger Antarctic ice cap also increased, by about 5% using NASA data. NASA, which is a fully warmist institution peddling the “CO2 hypothesis”, has been forced to admit the Antarctic ice sheet is now at its largest since it started regular satellite monitoring in 1979.

Media spending on the permanent propaganda campaign has been massive, and a fantastic misappropriation of public money where this concerns state-owned media. Obsessionally and expensively filmed summertime-only shots of polar ice melting – which the “climate correct” media has stuffed down our throats for a decade – are however now likely to be retreating to where they belong. To the trashcan of history and to empty film theaters, and late night TV doc boredom for the almost-asleep.

The warmists set up and tirelessly milked the global warming cash cow for all it could yield, but now it is Game Over time. Their great scientific scam may now be what it always scientifically was, a Cuckoo Theory which evicted all other possible theories of why the climate changes.

The Latecomers and Still Hopefuls

As plenty of writers including myself have explained plenty of times, the “CO2 theory” is scientific folk history and was junkscience from the moment it started – in about 1795 with Joseph Priestley and his lurid vision of Phlogiston Terror. To him worse than Al-Qaeda or mustard gas in the trenches of World War I, Priestley thought “phlogiston” could cause a mass dieoff of English industrial workers exposed to woodburning and coalburning fumes!  But nobody had to believe it.

Today, only the most primitive minded and witless “warmists” soldier along, spouting idiocies in the hope the under-informed and the lazyminded will continue to buy their junkscience.

If all goes according to plan, Hollywood icon Leonardo DiCaprio will blast into space on the maiden voyage of Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic “spaceship” this year. Incredibly enough, Messrs. Branson and DiCaprio style themselves as environmentalist celebrities with the elite mission of warning us there is a “coming ecological catastrophe” if we fail to address the carbon crisis.

Simply because they have garnered a large amount of money over the years, one way and another, their “commitment to fighting climate change” is called praiseworthy by brain-dead media, committed to “celeb worship” even as it backs off and away from the Global Warming scam. Richard Branson, despite all his attempts, is still far behind Al Gore in “warmist” cash-grubbing so he is active wherever that might turn a penny.

Branson claims he was “turned on” to Global Warming by ‘Jim’ Lovelock in person – the same Lovelock who has abandoned the scam. Branson is the founder and CEO of the “Carbon War Room”, an outfit advocating punitive-high energy taxes, which therefore has fawning support from Big Energy and Big Government, but his big hope is that “low carbon space travel” can become his new profit center. His one-liner to critics that space travel and carbon hysteria do not seem to mix, is that his brand of space travel is (very) Low Carbon. Cited by Wall Street Journal, 7 January, he has claimed: “We have reduced the [carbon emission] cost of somebody going into space from something like two weeks of New York’s electricity supply to less than the cost of an economy round-trip from Singapore to London”.

As we know, this concerns low-orbital short-period flight in the upper atmosphere, and nothing to do with real space travel, but coming from a “Global Warming ikon” we must accept there is always massive exaggeration and distortion. It is New Normal. On the other hand, we do not need to accept the plain, straight lying.

According to the US FAA-Federal Aviation Administration, also cited by Wall Street Journal, its own environmental assessment of the launch and re-entry of Virgin Galactic’s spacecraft says that one launch-land cycle will emit about 30 tons of carbon dioxide, or about five tons per passenger. That is around five times more than the carbon footprint of a round-trip flight from Singapore to London. When the support and infrastructure energy costs of the entire Virgin Galactic operation are added, including high-atmosphere flights by tracker and support aircraft, the total carbon emissions rise to about seven times more than an average round-trip flight from Singapore to London. The FAA says that for each passenger on a single trip using Virgin Galactic their total energy burn will be at least twice the energy an average American consumes in a year.

When or if Branson’s tacky low-orbital “space” flights backed by the United Arab Emirates and their “low carbon” petrodollars ever get their celebrity cargoes out of the Earth’s gravity field, a trip to Mars will be obligatory.  Here, they will find an atmosphere that is about 96% carbon dioxide (or 960 000 parts per million), and they will be able to smugly gurgle, for the short time they can still breathe: “We told you so!”. Back on Earth however, a little modesty, or at least the prospect of lawsuits for open lying – which is cited by observers as one reason ‘Jim’ Lovelock and his namesake James Hansen have backed away from the Warming scam – call on them to give us a rest and to please pipe down.

Keeping The Baboons Warm

Keeping the warmist gravy train rolling – whatever happens in the real world – is rapidly reverting to whence it came.  Big Government, the UN system, the nuclear power and alternate energy industry, and financial opportunists always looking for a new scam. To this motley crew, we have two major bit-part players – government-friendly media and Mr and Mrs Average Informed Citizen – so well-informed they are both easy prey for the lying propaganda from the Carbon Purists. But neither, in fact, can be counted on by the warmists, as they will soon find out.

Baboons in an English wildlfe park searching hot potatoes (Source/ Guardian)

Any kind of historical perspective on atmospheric science and the origins of the “CO2 hypothesis” was until recently deliberately kept out of the media. Any reference to “alternate theories” was trashed by the media as negative, anti-science, badly-intentioned and probably corrupt. Global Warming of the Al Gore variety was to  the west what Lysenko was to the USSR of Stalin. Any mention of the relatively large, sometimes outright large changes of world average temperatures over the last 1500 years was derided by warmists  – because there was warming in 1980-2000, by a few fractions of 1 degree celsius, we have a crisis. Only “carbon effluent” in the atmosphere could have caused this! What else?

The media, like public opinion is doing what it always does – it moves slowly but surely like a Titanic-crushing iceberg, breaking up as it goes. The media at this moment is packed with scientifically flaky, superficially plausible stories about how global warming causes record cold and massive snowstorms in New York, but also that until the magic date of 2065 global warming will be “net positive” for human beings, while Mr Obama has told us (although we don’t have to believe him) 97 percent of scientists still think crisis-style warming is a reality.

In a late 2013 report, the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism said that most media coverage of climate change now emphasises uncertainty, and an increasing number (25%) focus on the “positive opportunities” global warming could or might bring.  Global cooling, however, remains completely banned from mainstream media, except as  freaky tidbit, despite it being at least as possible that we have cooling, as warming, in a time frame stretching to 2065.

Keeping The Baboons Stupid

Admitting that we don’t know what happens in the Earth’s atmosphere, therefore we can’t know how climate changes is affecting global temperature – is the ultimate blog-material. It is the no-no option and “just in case”, or “simply by precaution”, so we have to reject that possibility. Time is limited and Al Gore needs cash. Propaganda overkill arrived. Now Gore’s pews are empty, and we’re left with hit-and-run street preachers.

One key benefit of the comeuppance for global warming, losing its status of “unquestionable” except by misfits, psychotics and the badly-motivated, is that climate change will be able to emerge as the real subject of interest.

We are likely near the point, now, when the blindest and most faithful cult followers of global warming and the “CO2 hypothesis” will have to admit they’ve been sold a pup. The computer-modeled, science-correct, politically-correct theory of man-made CO2 causing global warming, or its second-best rebranded title of “climate change”, or its third-best of “extreme weather”, was a 10-year trip to oblivion along the well-trod path of Dumbing Down. Global Warming was Dumb with a capital D.

Gore-theory proved nothing at all. The sole benefit of the waltz down Propaganda Lane is that we know climate is changing but we don’t know why. Being able to admit that is difficult for high intellect baboons.

Baboons are in fact a lot more results-oriented, and have much less time to waste on trivial pursuits than human beings. For that reason they do not invent new enemies and they make do with ones they always have had and know well. Who are real. The Global Warming crisis movement – an example of mass hysteria – invented an all-new enemy for Mankind, called Mankind.

Also called misanthropy and being more than a little dated, the warmists pushed the misanthropy button so hard we were asked to think “we” are destroying our planet – unlike Al Gore with his personal Gulfstream 5 jet, his expanding waistline and penchant for fillet mignon and massage parlors with happy endings – and unlike Richard Branson and his Virgin jetliners, because average humans use far too much fossil energy, but Branson and his Hollywood playboy pal are apparently “saving the planet” for those of us who don’t own our own island in the Caribbean.

This mental constipation only has one logical readout – that human beings should operate a mass cull or Die Off, to prevent us from killing the planet – which belongs to very nice persons like Gore and Branson. Even low-IQ baboons would reject the embarked logic inside this mental masturbation. They would much prefer serious endeavors like looking for rapidly-cooling potatoes in the snow.

It’s officially an evolutionary crisis when the feral monkeys start looking smarter than our jet-setting monkeys in suits. Maybe it’s time to put the feral baboons in suits and ties, and let them realize their true Darwinian potential in Westminster, Brussels and Washington.

WAS HAIYAN THE STRONGEST STORM EVER? NO Reblog from The Hockey Schtick


Haiyan was a massive storm and it caused tremendous  loss of life and property.  Never-the-less, exaggeration of the storm’s strength does not serve science.
 
This is a reblog of a posting by:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK

Was Haiyan the Strongest Storm Ever? No

Was Haiyan the Strongest Storm Ever?By Cris LaranoWSJ.COM 11/14/13–MANILA—When supertyphoon Haiyan, locally known as Yolanda, made landfall last Friday on Guiuan, a coastal town on the central Philippine island of Samar around 410 miles south of Manila, it was described by some as the strongest storm to make landfall in the world this year, maybe ever.

So is it?Data from the national weather bureau, the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration, or PAGASA, showed that Typhoon Haiyan’s intensity – measured by the wind strength at its center and the speed of gusts at landfall – Haiyan ranks at number 7 among the strongest storms ever to have hit the Philippines.It could eventually prove to be the deadliest, with the death toll currently at more than 2,300 and mounting. But among the so-called supertyphoons— those with center winds in excess of 134 miles an hour — the title goes to Joan.Known locally as Sening, that storm made landfall in Virac, Catanduanes province, north of the current devastation and around 236 miles south of Manila. When it hit, Joan had center winds of 171 miles per hour and gusts of 193 miles per hour, compared to Haiyan’s 147 mph.

2020 UN Treaty: US And Europe’s Energy Use To Match The Philippines?


The target of 1 trillion tonnes of CO2 is part of the discussion underway in Poland at COP 19.  The delegates want to get a treaty in place by 2020 which all nations will sign when the Kyoto Treaty expires.  The new treaty will demand two things.  Reparations for the developing nations for the “damage” resulting from global warming that the developed nations are responsible for and an agreement by which CO2 emissions are dramatically reduced. (Click on charts to enlarge.)

Screen Shot 2013-11-14 at 12.38.03 PM

The developed nations had agreed to supply $30 billion in the period of 2010-2012.  Five nations–US, Germany, Norway, UK and Japan—gave a total of $27 billion. The desired treaty will include vast sums of money to be transferred between developed and less developed countries.  There was a study done of how much money would be needed to accomplish the objective of never letting the atmospheric CO2 exceed 1 trillion tonnes and the number was $5.7 trillion.  Not all of this is transfer money.  Much of it would go for changes to the global energy structure.

Continue reading

Skeptics Are At A Huge Disadvantage Regarding Funding.


It is misinformation, largely based upon purposeful lies, that a giant conspiracy funded by Big Oil is making people skeptical of the theory of man-made global warming.  Accordingly, this supposed campaign has been so good that the majority of people do not think that global warming is a significant issue.  Surely that must be the explanation, they say.  How else could such an insignificant number of people (skeptics) be so persuasive?

Lets assume that the premise that enough money can buy opinion is factual.  If so, who is getting the money?  The skeptics or the warmers?

In summary the Warmers get more than $25 billion per year.  I am guessing here, but I “swag*” that the Skeptics pull in something in the range of $25 and $50 million at a maximum.

Continue reading