Global Warming - Fact or Fiction? - Page 13 - Keira Knightley.com Forums
Keira Knightley.com Forums  

Go Back   Keira Knightley.com Forums > Wavefront Community > General Discussion

General Discussion Talk about pretty much anything.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-08-2011, 02:15 AM   #241
da bahstid
Newcomer
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: portland, oregon usa
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave View Post
This is a link to part one of five youtube videos of Lord Moncton talking about the origins and linkages of the "GlobalWarming/Marxist" community. You should enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHyMY...eature=related

This is a link to part one of five youtube videos of Lord Moncton talking about the origins and linkages of the "GlobalWarming/Marxist" community. You should enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHyMY...eature=related

This is a link to part one of five youtube videos of Lord Moncton talking about the origins and linkages of the "GlobalWarming/Marxist" community. You should enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHyMY...eature=related

This is a link to part one of five youtube videos of Lord Moncton talking about the origins and linkages of the "GlobalWarming/Marxist" community. You should enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHyMY...eature=related

This is a link to part one of five youtube videos of Lord Moncton talking about the origins and linkages of the "GlobalWarming/Marxist" community. You should enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHyMY...eature=related

This is a link to part one of five youtube videos of Lord Moncton talking about the origins and linkages of the "GlobalWarming/Marxist" community. You should enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHyMY...eature=related
__________________
Dave
Your position certainly depends a lot on this guy. Since I've finally noticed who this clown is, let's talk about him.

"Lord Monckton" is a politician. Now in any reasonable science debate that's pretty much all that needs to be said. But since this debate has been anything but...

"Lord Monckton" has no science background. His degrees are in Classics (whatever that is) and Journalism.

"Lord Monckton" is not even a Lord. "The House of Lords has taken the unprecedented step of publishing a "cease and desist" letter on its website demanding that Lord Christopher Monckton stop claiming to be a member of the upper house."

"LordMonckton" is a pathological liar. You two are peas in a pod. This guy routinely makes up statements prominent scientists never made.

Monckton: "But the solar physicists...attribute 69% of all the recent global warming to the sun. The International Astronomical Union in 2004 held a symposium on it. They concluded that that was the case. They said we're now going to get global cooling..." Minnesota 2009
Scientists he cites:"I can assure you there is not such a formal position endorsed by the IAU. Let alone any claim from IAU that suggests that global warming can be explained by solar variability." Valentin Martinez Pillet, President of the International Astronomical Union

Monckton: "They [the NOAA] rely only on data from ships dropping canvas buckets down as they randomly pass across the oceans, and pulling up some water and sticking a thermometer in." Minnesota 2009
Scientists he cites: "Mr. Monckton's statement to the effect that we used temperature measurements of seawater gathered by dragging canvas buckets through the ocean are completely false." Sydney Levitus (email correspondance with John Abraham)

Monckton: "Dr. Craig Idso has collected papers by almost 1000 scientists worldwide, nearly all of which demonstrate the influence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and show it was at least as warm as, and in most instances warmer than, the present." The Climate of Freedom
Scientists he cites: "No, I do not think there is evidence that the world was warmer than today in Medieval times." Dr. Raymond Bradley
"We do not believe that our work disproves” human-induced global warming." Dr. Rosanne D’Arrigo. "Most global temperature reconstructions suggest that on average, the MWP was not warmer than today. Regardless, a warm MWP doesn't disprove the fact that humans are changing climate presently." Dr. Jessica Tierney

Monckton: "No ocean heat buildup for 50 years" (citing Domingues) Minnesota 2009
Scientists he cites: "We have found that the upper 700 m of the global ocean has warmed from 1950-2003." Catia Domingues

Monckton: "The population of polar bears has increased dramatically since the 1940s and 1950s. Somewhere between 2 and 5 times, we don't know exactly but it's certainly a huge increase in polar bear population. Hardly as you would think the profile of a species in imminent threat of extinction." Minnesota 2009
Scientists he cites: "I do not believe that Christopher Monckton has read my work, or recent work of prominent polar bear biologists that is easily obtained thru Google." Charles Monnett

Monckton: "Warm: more polar bears. Cool: fewer polar bears." (referencing Norris et al 2002) Minnesota 2009
Scientists he cites: "The report Polar Bears at Risk reviews the threats faced by the world's 22,000 polar bears and highlights that human-induced climate change is the number one long-term threat to the survival of the world's largest terrestrial carnivores." Kathleen Sullivan (co-author of Norris et al 2002)

And I cut out half the examples from this one report alone. It's easy to see why the House of Lords is offended. What an embarassment...
da bahstid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2011, 02:46 AM   #242
da bahstid
Newcomer
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: portland, oregon usa
Posts: 20


A reasonably concise synopsis in layman's terms

"The first point to establish is that humans are the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. This fact is common sense. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is going up by around 15 billion tonnes per year. Humans are emitting around twice that much!"

"As far back as the mid 1800s, Tyndall predicted that greenhouse warming should cause nights to warm faster than days. This is because at night, the Earth's surface cools by radiating heat out to space. Greenhouse gases trap some of this heat, slowing the night-time cooling."

"If the sun was causing global warming, it would cause summers to warm faster than winter, days to warm faster than nights and the upper atmosphere to warm."

And how that ominously applies to the current heatwave

"But while the current heat wave has recorded 12 all-time daily highs so far this month, it also has registered 98 all-time overnight highs, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported at a briefing Thursday."
da bahstid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2011, 10:12 PM   #243
dave
Member
 
dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 8000 feet up in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by da bahstid View Post

"But while the current heat wave has recorded 12 all-time daily highs so far this month, it also has registered 98 all-time overnight highs, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported at a briefing Thursday."
So, could you explain how you set "98 all-time overnight highs" in a month? You're really on a roll there, aren't you? Liar.
__________________
Dave

%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
"Le uova non devono ballare con le pietre."
"Eggs have no business dancing with stones" from the movie "Shoot 'Em Up"
%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2011, 04:02 PM   #244
da bahstid
Newcomer
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: portland, oregon usa
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave View Post
So, could you explain how you set "98 all-time overnight highs" in a month? You're really on a roll there, aren't you? Liar.
THEY were talking about individual cities/towns setting highs across the US. Even you couldn't possibly have missed that. Though I guess the page has expired. You probably waited until it did before posting this response I'm guessing?
da bahstid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2011, 04:13 PM   #245
da bahstid
Newcomer
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: portland, oregon usa
Posts: 20
Oh but here's a newer one for you...

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-...142616605.html

And since you'll probably wait until the page expires again before posting another retort, I may as well quote the whole damn article...


WASHINGTON (AP) — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.
What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to "The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study.

One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.

Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.

"The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."

Muller said that he came into the study "with a proper skepticism," something scientists "should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism" before.

There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.

Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.

"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world," he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is.

On Monday, Muller was taking his results — four separate papers that are not yet published or peer-reviewed, but will be, he says — to a conference in Santa Fe, N.M., expected to include many prominent skeptics as well as mainstream scientists.

"Of course he'll be welcome," said Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Lab, a noted skeptic and the conference organizer. "The purpose of our conference is to bring people with different views on climate together, so they can talk and clarify things."

Shawn Lawrence Otto, author of the book "Fool Me Twice" that criticizes science skeptics, said Muller should expect to be harshly treated by global warming deniers. "Now he's considered a traitor. For the skeptic community, this isn't about data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team now."

Muller's study found that skeptics' concerns about poor weather station quality didn't skew the results of his analysis because temperature increases rose similarly in reliable and unreliable weather stations. He also found that while there is an urban heat island effect making cities warmer, rural areas, which are more abundant, are warming, too.

Among many climate scientists, the reaction was somewhat of a yawn.
"After lots of work he found exactly what was already known and accepted in the climate community," said Jerry North, a Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor who headed a National Academy of Sciences climate science review in 2006. "I am hoping their study will have a positive impact. But some folks will never change."

Chris Field, a Carnegie Institution scientist who is chief author of an upcoming intergovernmental climate change report, said Muller's study "may help the world's citizens focus less on whether climate change is real and more on smart options for addressing it."

Some of the most noted scientific skeptics are no longer saying the world isn't warming. Instead, they question how much of it is man-made, view it as less a threat and argue it's too expensive to do something about, Otto said.

Skeptical MIT scientist Richard Lindzen said it is a fact and nothing new that global average temperatures have been rising since 1950, as Muller shows. "It's hard to see how any serious scientist (skeptical, denier or believer — frequently depending on the exact question) will view it otherwise," he wrote in an email.

In a brief email statement, the Koch Foundation noted that Muller's team didn't examine ocean temperature or the cause of warming and said it will continue to fund such research. "The project is ongoing and entering peer review, and we're proud to support this strong, transparent research," said foundation spokeswoman Tonya Mullins.
___
Online:
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature site: http://www.berkeleyearth.org/index.php
Santa Fe climate conference: http://bit.ly/rQknVi

-end quote


The guy gets paid hundreds of thousands to keep propagating Big Oil lies, in the end doesn't know how to be dishonest. Richard Muller: you fail as a right-wing pundit, sir. You are now a credible and respectable human being. Sorry.
da bahstid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2011, 04:35 PM   #246
da bahstid
Newcomer
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: portland, oregon usa
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by da bahstid View Post
Eh may as well throw some more information out before I go hit the bars...

2011 on pace to set record for most expensive year for natural disasters

"The United States has seen eight weather disasters this year exceeding $1 billion each in damage, and the annual hurricane season has hardly begun...The record is nine in a single year, in 2008."

Oh hey, I forgot about this. Let's followup on how this little trend has been going...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...o-far-in-2011/

This article unfortunately doesn't include a separate count for those disasters that specifically exceed billion-dollar costs, but it says enough:

From Hurricane Irene, which soaked the entire East Coast in August, to the Midwest tornadoes, which wrought havoc from Wisconsin to Texas, 2011 has seen more billion-dollar natural disasters than any year on record, according to the National Climatic Data Center...

...Obama has declared more disasters — 229 — in the first three years of his presidency than almost any other president signed in their full four-year terms. Only President George W. Bush declared more, having signed 238 disaster declarations in his second term, from 2005 to 2009...

-end quote


Oh hey, funny how that just follows right along with what I previously posted.

It's called predictive power, something you start to establish when you follow science responsibly.
da bahstid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2011, 03:39 AM   #247
dave
Member
 
dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 8000 feet up in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico
Posts: 271
Love to follow up on it. Start by explaining this away...

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/ma...est/#more-5526

(Total refutation by Muller and explanation of the Wall Street Journal's mishandling of the story.) But, of course da bahstid knows about that. So, da bahstid, since you are merely a troll, you can let your misinformation stand as long as nobody actually knows who you are. But since Science demands that Scientists identify with and stand behind their "opinions" I think you should delete your erroneous blatherings in case someone actually knows who you are and it destroys your career. Too bad you couldn't pass the Physics classes so you can become a real Scientist and had to stop at becoming a "Climatologist." Here's hoping you have a great set of knockers so you can get ahead in that "Scientific Career."

Perhaps you should start deleting your misinformation. You do that, and I'll remove mine. Nobody will remember you, your 15 minutes is over.

http://judithcurry.com/
__________________
Dave

%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
"Le uova non devono ballare con le pietre."
"Eggs have no business dancing with stones" from the movie "Shoot 'Em Up"
%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2011, 10:11 PM   #248
dave
Member
 
dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 8000 feet up in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico
Posts: 271
Accuracy In Media: Will Media Expose Global Warming Con Job?
__________________
Dave

%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
"Le uova non devono ballare con le pietre."
"Eggs have no business dancing with stones" from the movie "Shoot 'Em Up"
%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2011, 11:53 PM   #249
dave
Member
 
dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 8000 feet up in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico
Posts: 271
Fake forum comments are 'eroding' trust in the web (BBC)

Researchers say "Trust in information on the web is being damaged by the huge numbers of people paid by companies to post comments online."

Fake posters can "poison" debate and make people unsure about who they can trust, the study suggests. Some firms have created tens of thousands of fake accounts to flood chat forums and skew debate."

Quote:
24 November 2011


Fake forum comments are 'eroding' trust in the web

Fakes in comment forums and social networks can erode trust in what we see online

Trust in information on the web is being damaged by the huge numbers of people paid by companies to post comments online, say researchers.

Fake posters can "poison" debate and make people unsure about who they can trust, the study suggests.

Some firms have created tens of thousands of fake accounts to flood chat forums and skew debate.

The researchers say there are reliable ways to spot fakes and urge websites to do more to police users.

The researchers from Canada and China say paying people to post comments is an "interesting strategy in business marketing" but it is not a benign activity.

"Paid posters may create a significant negative effect on the online communities, since the information from paid posters is usually not trustworthy," they wrote.
Never believe someone who claims they are a "Scientist" or "Expert," (and might even sound like one) if that person refuses to tell you their name.
__________________
Dave

%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
"Le uova non devono ballare con le pietre."
"Eggs have no business dancing with stones" from the movie "Shoot 'Em Up"
%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2011, 12:30 AM   #250
dave
Member
 
dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 8000 feet up in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico
Posts: 271
There's a new book. The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, by Donna Laframboise Amazon.com link

The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, by Donna Laframboise Review from "The Spiked review of books"

Quote:
In her book, Laframboise takes us through the major claims made about the IPCC and demolishes them one by one.

For example, there’s the idea that the IPCC report is the product of the world’s top experts. But in reality, knowing a subject well is not nearly as important, it seems, as having a face that fits. So, leading IPCC contributors sometimes do not even have PhDs in their subjects, never mind being world-class experts, while other researchers in charge of chapters had expertise in a completely different area to the one they were working on. Meanwhile, the nature of the review process means that when leading experts are critical, they can safely be ignored by chapter authors.

Another piece of IPCC spin is that its reports are built upon the best available research. In fact, there is heavy reliance on the so-called ‘grey’ literature - material that is not from peer-reviewed journals at all. This material can even just be magazine articles or propaganda from environmentalist groups. The most famous example of this is the ‘Himalayagate’ affair, which centred on the important claim made in the 2007 report that glaciers, apparently crucial to the water supply for billions of people, would disappear entirely by 2035.
Quote:
Nothing could demand urgent action more than this. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The glaciers are likely to last for hundreds of years, as was pointed out by expert reviewers - who were ignored. However, in early 2010, it was pointed out that the erroneous idea came from a document produced by environmental group WWF, which in turn had quoted an earlier interview in New Scientist magazine.

In March 2010, Laframboise decided to take on the task of working out just how many references in the 2007 report were to non-peer-reviewed sources. With the help of volunteers from her blog readership, her audit found that 30 per cent of the references were from newspaper and magazine articles, unpublished masters theses, reports produced by green groups and even press releases. That hardly inspires confidence, particularly when she also reveals how IPCC movers and shakers have exploited links with peer-reviewed journals to get the ‘right’ kind of research into print just in time to bolster their views in the assessment reports - and to block the ‘wrong’ kind of research from getting the kudos of peer-reviewed publication.
__________________
Dave

%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
"Le uova non devono ballare con le pietre."
"Eggs have no business dancing with stones" from the movie "Shoot 'Em Up"
%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2012, 09:40 AM   #251
dave
Member
 
dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 8000 feet up in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico
Posts: 271
http://stopgreensuicide.com

Full AR5 draft leaked here, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing

Posted by Alec Rawls, 12/13/12

I participated in "expert review" of the Second Order Draft of AR5 (the next IPCC report), Working Group 1 ("The Scientific Basis"), and am now making the full draft available to the public. I believe that the leaking of this draft is entirely legal, that the taxpayer funded report is properly in the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act, and that making it available to the public is in any case protected by established legal and ethical standards, but web hosting companies are not in the business of making such determinations so interested readers are encouraged to please download copies of the report for further dissemination in case this content is removed as a possible terms-of-service violation. My reasons for leaking the report are explained below. Here are the chapters:

Summary for Policymakers
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean
Chapter 4: Observations: Cryosphere
Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives
Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols
Chapter Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
Chapter 8 Supplement
Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models
Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional
Chapter 11: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility
Chapter 13: Sea Level Change
Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
Chapter 14 Supplement
Technical Summary



Why leak the draft report?

By Alec Rawls (email)

General principles

The ethics of leaking tax-payer funded documents requires weighing the "public's right to know" against any harm to the public interest that may result. The press often leaks even in the face of extreme such harm, as when the New York Times published details of how the Bush administration was tracking terrorist financing with the help of the private sector Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), causing this very successful anti-terror program to immediately collapse.

That was a bad leak, doing great harm to expose something that nobody needed to know about. With the UN's IPCC reports the calculus is reversed. UN "climate chief" Christina Figueres explains what is at stake for the public:

... we are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science.

So may we please see this "science" on the basis of which our existing energy infrastructure is to be ripped out in favor of non-existent "green" energy? The only reason for secrecy in the first place is to enhance the UN's political control over a scientific story line that is aimed explicitly at policy makers. Thus the drafts ought to fall within the reach of the Freedom of Information Act.

The Obama administration implicitly acknowledged this when it tried to evade FOIA by setting up private "backdoor channels" for communications with the IPCC. If NCAR's Gerald Meehl (a lead author of AR5's chapter on near-term climate change), has working copies of the draft report (and he's only one of dozens of U.S. government researchers who would), then by law the draft report (now finished) should be available to the public.

The IPCC's official reason for wanting secrecy (as they explained it to Steve McIntyre in January 2012) is so that criticisms of the drafts are not spread out across the internet but get funneled through the UN's comment process. If there is any merit to that rationale it is now moot. The comment period ended November 30th so the comment process can no longer be affected by publication.

As for my personal confidentiality agreement with the IPCC, I regard that as vitiated by the systematic dishonesty of the report ("omitted variable fraud" as I called it in my FOD comments). This is a general principle of journalistic confidentiality: bad faith on one side breaks the agreement on the other. They can't ask reviewers to become complicit in their dishonesty by remaining silent about it.

Then there is the specific content of the Second Order Draft where the addition of one single sentence demands the release of the whole. That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole.



Lead story from the Second Order Draft: strong evidence for solar forcing beyond TSI now acknowledged by IPCC

Compared to the First Order Draft, the SOD now adds the following sentence, indicated in bold (page 7-43, lines 1-5, emphasis added):

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence ("many empirical relationships") for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don't know what the mechanism is. This directly undercuts the main premise of the report, as stated in Chapter 8 (page 8-4, lines 54-57):

There is very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular, over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite observations of the TSI and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero (–0.04 W m–2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of ~1.0 ± 0.3 W m–2.

The Chapter 8 authors (a different group than the Chapter 7 authors) are explicit here that their claim about natural forcing being small compared to anthropogenic forcing is based on an analysis in which the only solar forcing that is taken into account is TSI. This can be verified from the radiative forcing table on page 8-39 where the only solar variable included in the IPCC's computer models is seen to be "solar irradiance."

This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing.

The Chapter 8 premise that natural forcing is relatively small leads directly to the main conclusion of the entire report, stated in the first sentence of the Executive Summary (the very first sentence of the entire report): that advances since AR4 "further strengthen the basis for human activities being the primary driver in climate change" (p.1-2, lines 3-5). This headline conclusion is a direct descendant of the assumption that the only solar forcing is TSI, a claim that their own report no longer accepts.

The report still barely hints at the mountain of evidence for enhanced solar forcing, or the magnitude of the evidenced effect. Dozens of studies (section two here) have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices, suggesting that solar activity "explains" in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change, very little of which could be explained by the very slight variation in TSI. At least the Chapter 7 team is now being explicit about what this evidence means: that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work.

My full submitted comments (which I will post later) elaborate several important points. For instance, note that the Chapter 8 premise (page 8-4, lines 54-57) assumes that it is the change in the level of forcing since 1980, not the level of forcing, that would be causing warming. Solar activity was at historically high levels at least through the end of solar cycle 22 (1996), yet the IPCC is assuming that because this high level of solar forcing was roughly constant from 1950 until it fell off during solar cycle 23 it could not have caused post-1980 warming. In effect they are claiming that you can't heat a pot of water by turning the burner to maximum and leaving it there, that you have to keep turning the flame up to get continued warming, an un-scientific absurdity that I have been writing about for several years (most recently in my post about Isaac Held's bogus 2-box model of ocean equilibration).

The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can't continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.
__________________
Dave

%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
"Le uova non devono ballare con le pietre."
"Eggs have no business dancing with stones" from the movie "Shoot 'Em Up"
%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2012, 09:42 AM   #252
dave
Member
 
dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 8000 feet up in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico
Posts: 271
http://stopgreensuicide.com

President Obama is already pushing a carbon tax premised on the fear that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. Last week his people were at the UN's climate meeting in Doha pretending that Hurricane Sandy was caused by human increments to CO2 as UN insiders assured the public that the next IPCC report will "scare the wits out of everyone" with its ramped-up predictions of human-caused global warming to come, but this is not where the evidence points, not if climate change is in any substantial measure driven by the sun, which has now gone quiet and is exerting what influence it has in the cooling direction.

The acknowledgement of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing should upend the IPCC's entire agenda. The easiest way for the UN to handle this disruptive admission would be to remove it from their final draft, which is another reason to make the draft report public now. The devastating admission needs to be known so that the IPCC can't quietly take it back.



Will some press organization please host the leaked report?

Most of us have to worry about staying within cautiously written and cautiously applied terms-of-service agreements. That's why I created this new website. If it gets taken down nothing else gets taken with it. Media companies don't have this problem. They have their own servers and publishing things like the draft IPCC report is supposed to be their bailiwick.

If the press has First Amendment protection for the publication of leaked materials even when substantial national security interests are at stake (the Supreme Court precedent set in the Pentagon Papers case), then it can certainly republish a leaked draft of a climate science report where there is no public interest in secrecy. The leaker could be at risk (the case against Pentagon leaker Daniel Ellsberg was thrown out for government misconduct, not because his activity was found to be protected) but the press is safe, and their services would be appreciated.

United States taxpayers have funded climate science to the tune of well over 80 billion dollars, all channeled through the funding bureaucracy established by Vice President Albert "the end is nigh" Gore when he served as President Clinton's "climate czar." That Gore-built bureaucracy is still to this day striving to insure that not a penny of all those taxpayer billions ever goes to any researcher who is not committed to the premature conclusion that human contributions to atmospheric CO2 are causing dangerous global warming (despite the lack of any statistically significant warming for more than 15 years).

Acolytes of this bought "consensus" want to see what new propaganda their tax dollars have wrought and so do the skeptics. It's unanimous, and an already twice-vetted draft is sitting now in thousands of government offices around the world. Time to fork it over to the people.
__________________
Dave

%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
"Le uova non devono ballare con le pietre."
"Eggs have no business dancing with stones" from the movie "Shoot 'Em Up"
%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2012, 10:06 AM   #253
dave
Member
 
dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 8000 feet up in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico
Posts: 271
Here's the link to the report for as long as it lasts, not that anybody really cares except me, and I only care because I didn't want to be ridiculed because of my posts.

http://stopgreensuicide.com

The final summary is over 99 pages long, so I'm not copying and pasting it here. But I did download it just in case it "Poofs."
__________________
Dave

%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
"Le uova non devono ballare con le pietre."
"Eggs have no business dancing with stones" from the movie "Shoot 'Em Up"
%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 10:50 PM   #254
dave
Member
 
dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 8000 feet up in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico
Posts: 271
http://www.aim.org/guest-column/sign...cate-of-death/
__________________
Dave

%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
"Le uova non devono ballare con le pietre."
"Eggs have no business dancing with stones" from the movie "Shoot 'Em Up"
%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 10:57 PM   #255
dave
Member
 
dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 8000 feet up in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico
Posts: 271
http://www.aim.org/newswire/global-w...cy+In+Media%29
__________________
Dave

%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
"Le uova non devono ballare con le pietre."
"Eggs have no business dancing with stones" from the movie "Shoot 'Em Up"
%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2013, 11:18 AM   #256
dave
Member
 
dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 8000 feet up in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico
Posts: 271
And this ought to be enough even for the "slow" people who still argue about this dren.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/about-...stom_click=rss
__________________
Dave

%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
"Le uova non devono ballare con le pietre."
"Eggs have no business dancing with stones" from the movie "Shoot 'Em Up"
%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-09-2013, 11:22 AM   #257
dave
Member
 
dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 8000 feet up in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico
Posts: 271
Never trust predictions made by people that don't understand the code making the predictions... Never... Ever...

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/...#ixzz2enZmDFcw

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate...20estimate.pdf
__________________
Dave

%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
"Le uova non devono ballare con le pietre."
"Eggs have no business dancing with stones" from the movie "Shoot 'Em Up"
%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#
dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
By appointment to HM Keira Knightley.