Gator
Life Member
-
Joined
Everything posted by Gator
-
More bad news for the alarmists. Back radiation versus CO2 as the cause of climate change H Douglas Lightfoot, Orval A Mamer First Published July 28, 2017 Abstract Robust scientific evidence shows the sun angle controls water vapour content of the atmosphere, the main component of back radiation, as it cycles annually. Water vapour content measured as the ratio of the number of water molecules to CO2 molecules varies from 1:1 near the Poles to 97:1 in the Tropics. The effect of back radiation on Earth’s atmosphere is up to 200 times larger than that of CO2 and works in the opposite direction. Thus, if CO2 has any effect on atmospheric temperature and climate change we show it is negligible. Consequently, current government policies to control atmospheric temperature by limiting consumption of fossil fuels will have negligible effect. Measured data reported in IPCC report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (AR5) indicate increased water vapour content of the atmosphere is the cause of the 0.5℃ temperature increase from the mid-1970s to 2011. You can read it here http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0958305X17722790 References 1. Lightfoot HD. A strategy for adequate future energy supply and carbon emission control. In: Climate change technology conference: engineering challenges and solutions in the 21st century, Engineering Institute of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, p.3, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/guesthome.jsp (9–12 May 2006, accessed 20 July 2017). Google Scholar 2. Iodice P, Senatore A. Atmospheric pollution from point and diffuse sources in a National Interest Priority Site located in Italy. Energy Environ 2016, pp. 27: 586–596. Google Scholar 3. Iodice P, Senatore A. Industrial and urban sources in Campania, Italy: the air pollution emission inventory. Energy Environ 2015, pp. 26: 1305–1317. Google Scholar 4. Iodice P and Senatore A. Influence of ethanol-gasoline blended fuels on cold start emissions of a four-stroke motorcycle. Methodology and results. SAE technical papers 6. Paper no. 2013-24-0117, 2013. Google Scholar 5. IPCC. Chapter 6 radiative forcing of climate change. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, et al. (eds) Climate Change 2001: The scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001, 881pp. Google Scholar 6. IPCC. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, et al. (eds) Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press 2007, Summary for Policy Makers, SPM.2, p.4. Google Scholar 7. IPCC. Summary for policymakers. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, et al. (eds) Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, Figure 2.11, 2013, p.181. Google Scholar 8. Wild M, et al. Evaluation of downward longwave radiation in general circulation models. J Climate Am Meteorol Soc 2001; 14: 3227–3239 (Table 4, p.3233). Google Scholar 9. Spencer RW. Climate confusion, encounter books. 1st ed. Chapter 3. New York, USA: Encounter Books, 2008. Google Scholar 10. Rosenberg M. Temperate, torrid and frigid zones, about education, http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/torridfrigid.htm (accessed 18 July 2017). Google Scholar 11. MegaWatSoft Psychrometric Calculator, HumidAir Excel Add-In v3.1. This program is available for purchase or rental, www.megawatsoft.com (accessed 18 July 2017). Google Scholar 12. United Nations Statistics Division, Earth Policy Institute, Eco-Economy Indicators, Global Temperatures, http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C51 (accessed 18 July 2017). Google Scholar 13. Willett KM, Williams CNJr., Dunn RJH, et al. HadISDH: an updateable land surface specific humidity product for climate monitoring. Climate Past 2013; 9: 657–677. Google Scholar Crossref 14. Willett KM, Jones PD, Gillett NP, et al. Recent changes in surface humidity: development of the HADCRUT dataset. J Climate 2008; 21: 5364–5383. Google Scholar Crossref 15. Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature//(accessed 19 July 2017). Google Scholar -
You won't believe it, but I've got more news on corals. There's much science doesn't know about corals, but viral infection is suggested as a trigger of coral–Symbiodinium dissociation. It may not be we nasty humans or "climate change" doing the damage. "Remember ‘Global Warming is killing the frogs?’ – turned out to be fungus spread by biologists.‘Global Warming is killing the bees!’ – parasites‘Global Warming is killing the bats!’ – fungusNow, ‘Global Warming is killing the coral!’ – virus ?" Unique nucleocytoplasmic dsDNA and +ssRNA viruses are associated with the dinoflagellate endosymbionts of corals Adrienne M S Correa , Rory M Welsh & Rebecca L Vega Thurber Abstract The residence of dinoflagellate algae (genus: Symbiodinium) within scleractinian corals is critical to the construction and persistence of tropical reefs. In recent decades, however, acute and chronic environmental stressors have frequently destabilized this symbiosis, ultimately leading to coral mortality and reef decline. Viral infection has been suggested as a trigger of coral–Symbiodinium dissociation; knowledge of the diversity and hosts of coral-associated viruses is critical to evaluating this hypothesis. Here, we present the first genomic evidence of viruses associated with Symbiodinium, based on the presence of transcribed +ss (single-stranded) RNA and ds (double-stranded) DNA virus-like genes in complementary DNA viromes of the coral Montastraea cavernosa and expressed sequence tag (EST) libraries generated from Symbiodinium cultures. The M. cavernosa viromes contained divergent viral sequences similar to the major capsid protein of the dinoflagellate-infecting +ssRNA Heterocapsa circularisquama virus, suggesting a highly novel dinornavirus could infect Symbiodinium. Further, similarities to dsDNA viruses dominated (∼69%) eukaryotic viral similarities in the M. cavernosa viromes. Transcripts highly similar to eukaryotic algae-infecting phycodnaviruses were identified in the viromes, and homologs to these sequences were found in two independently generated Symbiodinium EST libraries. Phylogenetic reconstructions substantiate that these transcripts are undescribed and distinct members of the nucleocytoplasmic large DNA virus (NCLDVs) group. Based on a preponderance of evidence, we infer that the novel NCLDVs and RNA virus described here are associated with the algal endosymbionts of corals. If such viruses disrupt Symbiodinium, they are likely to impact the flexibility and/or stability of coral–algal symbioses, and thus long-term reef health and resilience. You can read more here https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej201275
-
While we're feeling great about outcomes on the GBR: Remote coral reefs can be tougher than they look: Western Australia’s Scott Reef has recovered from mass bleaching Date: April 5, 2013 Source: ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies Summary: Isolated coral reefs can recover from catastrophic damage as effectively as those with nearby undisturbed neighbors, a long-term study by marine biologists has shown. Scott Reef, a remote coral system in the Indian Ocean, has largely recovered from a catastrophic mass bleaching event in 1998, according to the study. Scott Reef, a remote coral system in the Indian Ocean, has largely recovered from a catastrophic mass bleaching event in 1998, according to the study published in Science today. The study challenges conventional wisdom that suggested isolated reefs were more vulnerable to disturbance, because they were thought to depend on recolonisation from other reefs. Instead, the scientists found that the isolation of reefs allowed surviving corals to rapidly grow and propagate in the absence of human interference. You can read more here https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405094523.htm
-
Predicting doom for the Great Barrier Reef has almost become a sport for radical alarmists and their lemmings, but this comprehensive study from 1995-2009 shows some very good news. Somehow i think good news for the reef is bad news for those who predict its demise. It's almost though they want it to suffer. But never fear, the alarmists overstate everything and the GBR will be fine. Disturbance and the Dynamics of Coral Cover on the Great Barrier Reef (1995–2009) Disturbance and the Dynamics of Coral Cover on the Great Barrier Reef (1995–2009) Kate Osborne,* Andrew M. Dolman,¤a Scott C. Burgess,¤b and Kerryn A. Johns Abstract Coral reef ecosystems worldwide are under pressure from chronic and acute stressors that threaten their continued existence. Most obvious among changes to reefs is loss of hard coral cover, but a precise multi-scale estimate of coral cover dynamics for the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is currently lacking. Monitoring data collected annually from fixed sites at 47 reefs across 1300 km of the GBR indicate that overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% cover across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009. Subregional trends (10–100 km) in hard coral were diverse with some being very dynamic and others changing little. Coral cover increased in six subregions and decreased in seven subregions. Persistent decline of corals occurred in one subregion for hard coral and Acroporidae and in four subregions in non-Acroporidae families. Change in Acroporidae accounted for 68% of change in hard coral. Crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreaks and storm damage were responsible for more coral loss during this period than either bleaching or disease despite two mass bleaching events and an increase in the incidence of coral disease. While the limited data for the GBR prior to the 1980’s suggests that coral cover was higher than in our survey, we found no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995. Instead, fluctuations in coral cover at subregional scales (10–100 km), driven mostly by changes in fast-growing Acroporidae, occurred as a result of localized disturbance events and subsequent recovery. You can read more here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3053361/
-
I was away for months and congratulated wrecker for "fighting the good fight". Serious questions though... Do you think humans 3% contribution to 0.04% of atmospheric CO2 is more likely to drive the planet's temperatures than Solar activity, ocean circulations, and cloud forcing ? Or the 100 other things that contribute ? Especially when we know 4 things... 1. CO2 was 10 times greater in the past with cooler temperatures. 2. It's been proven that CO2 lagged temperature from ice cores (even alarmists don't deny this). 3. NASA manipulates data, because they know CO2 didn't drive temperature during the cooling period of 1940 - 1978. 4. Datasets show a correlation between temperature and solar activity. Do you want me to post the graphs again ? Even better, ask your brother and get back to me.
-
-
-
SEPTEMBER 2017 A landmark paper by warmist scientists in Nature Geoscience now concedes the world has indeed not warmed as predicted, thanks to a slowdown in the first 15 years of this century. One of its authors, Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admits his past predictions of runaway warming were too alarmist. ANOTHER author, Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford, confessed that too many of the mathematical models used by climate scientists to predict future warming “were on the hot side”— meaning they exaggerated.
Solution of the Greenhouse Effect equations shows no increase in Earth's surface temperature from increase in carbon dioxide https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319324166_Solution_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect_equations_shows_no_increase_in_Earth's_surface_temperature_from_increase_in_carbon_dioxide
‘Two-Thirds Of Climate Warming’ Since 1750 Due To ‘Solar Causes’ – Dr. Alan D. Smith, Geoscientist Much of the debate about the Sun’s role in climate change is centered around reconstructions of solar activity that span the last 400 years, which now include satellite data from the late 1970s to present. To buttress the claim that solar forcing has effectively played almost no role in surface temperature changes since the mid-20th century, the IPCC has shown preference for modeled reconstructions of solar activity (i.e., the PMOD) that show a stable or decreasing trend since the 1970s. Why? Because if the modeled results can depict steady or decreasing solar activity since the last few decades of the 20th century – just as surface temperatures were rising – then attributing the post-1970s warming trend to human activity becomes that much easier. The trouble is, satellite observations using ACRIM data (which have been affirmed to be accurate by other satellite data sets and are rooted in observation, not modeled expectations) indicate that solar activity did not decline after the 1970s, but actually rose quite substantially. It wasn’t until the early 2000s that solar activity began to decline, corresponding with the denouement of the Modern Grand Maximum. Notice how closely temperatures have followed solar activity ? After Removing Instrumental ‘Adjustments’, Urban Bias, Temperatures Follow Solar Activity The combined Hadley Centre and Climatic Research Unit (HadCRUT) data set — which is featured in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports — underwent a revision from version 3 to version 4 in March of 2012. This was about a year before the latest IPCC report was to be released (2013). At the time (early 2012), it was quite inconvenient to the paradigm that HadCRUT3 was highlighting a slight global cooling trend between 1998 and 2012, as shown in the graph below (using HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4 raw data from WoodForTrees). So, by changing versions, and by adjusting the data, the slight cooling was changed to a slight warming trend.
NASA removes warming trend from 1850-1950 from its OWN graphs. Why, because it's inconvenient for temperatures to have been steadily rising with anthropogenic emissions flat during this period. As recently as 1990, it was widely accepted that the global temperature trend, as reported by NASA (Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987), showed a “0.5°C rise between 1880 and 1950.” Naturally, the next graph shows that NASA has removed virtually all of the warming. Our resident Leftist dolts don't care. They turn a blind eye as long as NASA is progressing their religion. What do you think @Earl Hood
This post is manna from heaven. I now get to ask questions and hold you to account to each one. We begin. Despite seeming like a deranged idealogue you have excellent qualifications to argue fact. So I'll give you some. Btw, I'm an amateur observer with no scientific qualifications, so you won't find this hard. Phew. But the facts I present below are well researched, not mine, and if you differ please advise. I'm sure you'll indulge me by answering every question I'm about to pose with sound scientific reason. If you don't know don't guess. Remember there is NO consensus in science. As the great Albert Einstein once said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. One experiment can prove me wrong". I thank you in advance and please number every response. 1. Humans contribute approx. 3% of atmospheric CO2 and nature contributes 97%. Do you agree ? 2. CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, which is the equivalent of 4 cents in $10,000. Do you agree ? 3. Out of this 4 cents in $10,000 humans contribute 3%, i.e. 0.12 cents. Australia contributes 1.5% of that 0.12 cents, i.e. 0.0018 cents. Do you agree with these calculations, i.e. Australia contributes the equivalent of 0.0018 cents in $10,000 in the contribution of atmospheric CO2 ? 4. Do you think there are 100+ influences that contribute to climate change, i.e. solar activity, cosmic rays, ocean circulation, clouds, volcanoes, water vapour, El Niños, etc. or do you think that 0.04% of the atmosphere, i.e. CO2 is the sole driver of temperature ? 5. Do you think NASA has manipulated recent temperature graphs ? If not, I'll prove they have. 6. Do you think NASA scientists have publicly agreed that there was no significant warming in the 20th century ? If not, I'll prove they have. 7. Do you think climate scientists were worried about global cooling in the 1970's ? If not, I'll prove they were. 8. Do you think solar activity, specifically sunspots, could be the driving force of climate change, like scientists prior to the fund addicted generation of the 1980s and beyond ? 8. Explain why we've had cooler periods with 10 times atmospheric CO2, i.e 4000 ppmv, as opposed to our present levels of 400 ppmv ? If CO2 is the driver of temperature how is this possible ? 9. Ice cores from Antarctica prove that CO2 lags temperature. Even alarmists acknowledge this was the case. Do you agree or disagree ? 10. Arctic minimum sea ice extent is greater in 2017 than 2007 in supposedly hotter temperatures and the decade from hell. Explain how sea ice extent defies temperature ? Or is data being manipulated ? If you requite proof of the last 10 years of minimum Arctic sea ice extent I can provide it. I have more, but thought I'd start with an easy 10. You and your engineering background should kill this and educate me.
Of course climate changes, whether that be warming or cooling. Who has denied this ? It's always changing and always will. We're presently having less hurricanes and they're no more intense. The pause is now approx. 20 years despite NASA's fraudulent adjustment of data. Some warming is BETTER than cooling. Plus, CO2 lags temperature. It doesn't drive temperature. Humans are NOT warming the planet. SOLAR ACTIVITY dictates climate. You'll need to find a new religion.
Delingpole: Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 Say ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth Gulp http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/24/delingpole-now-400-scientific-papers-in-2017-say-global-warming-is-a-myth/ It’s the sun, stupid! (106 papers stress solar influence on climate) Before deranged Leftists have apoplexy re the source, they are just the "source". Too hard, I know. Your religion is a crock.
Matt Ridley is a British scientist who appeared on Foxtel's Outsiders program this morning. He (mistakenly) believes that CO2 and humans are "probably" warming the planet. But he's more concerned by radical government policies for this mistaken belief. For this lukewarm attitude he is pilloried by alarmists and labelled a climate misinformer. There is no hole for the Left. https://www.skepticalscience.com/Matt_Ridley_blog.htm
Here's one of James Hansen's from NASA temperature graphs from 1981. Note the cooling from 1940 to 1980. Now note the current NASA 20th century temperature graph. The cooling from 1940 to 1980 has been erased. Same organisation. Both NASA graphs of 20th century temperature data. Two different messages. It's fraudulent data manipulation that Leftists turn a blind eye to. And why do they turn a blind eye ? Because they are the most disingenuous swines to ever draw breath.
A quick lesson on how this global warming madness started. Bert Bolin a Swedish scientist was the first to talk about the dangers of CO2 in 1974 when global scientists were worried about global cooling. He said fossil fuels and the increase in CO2 may help warm the planet by a few degrees over the next 50 years. Originally considered absurd two things happened. The temperatures started to warm, and the miners went on strike. The oil crisis of the 1970s plunged the world into recession and the miners brought down Ted Heath’s conservative government. The beginning of the politicisation of energy was through Margaret Thatcher, who wanted nuclear energy. She didn’t trust the Middle East and she didn’t trust the miners, therefore coal, so she wanted nuclear power (the fact we don't have it now is a scandal). When the concerns re CO2 were raised she saw a great opportunity to go nuclear. She wasn’t really concerned about the destruction of the planet. Thatcher went to the Royal Society of scientists and said there’s money on the table to prove this stuff. Naturally, they did. And we’re left with this global madness driven by fund addicted scientists and enabled by deranged Leftists, whose new religion is the climate.
At UN Summit, World Rulers Adopt Agenda for Global Socialism Written by Alex Newman· A far-reaching United Nations plot to re-engineer civilization and impose global socialism on humanity, variously dubbed “Agenda 2030” and the “Sustainable Development Agenda,” was ushered in on Friday with a “thunderous standing ovation,” the UN Department of Public Information reported. Every one of the 193 UN member governments on the planet — from communist and Islamist dictatorships to those ruling what remains of the “Free World” — vowed to help impose the UN's controversial goals on their subjects. Indeed, according to the UN and the global agreement itself, not a single human being will be allowed to escape what one prominent internationalist ominously referred to as the next “Great Leap Forward.” That the UN Agenda 2030's 17 so-called “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) and its accompanying 169 targets are essentially a recipe for global socialism and corporatism is hardly open for dispute, as countless analysts have pointed out in recent weeks. Goal number 10, for example, calls on the UN, national governments, and every person on Earth to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” To do that, the agreement continues, will “only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.” The brutal communist dictatorship ruling mainland China even boasted of its “crucial role” in creating the UN agenda. But as the UN document makes clear, national socialism to “combat inequality” domestically is simply not enough — international socialism is needed to battle inequality even “among” countries. In other words, Western taxpayers: Prepare to be fleeced so that your wealth can redistributed internationally. Of course, as has been the case for generations, most of the wealth extracted from the productive sector in what remains of the free world will be redistributed to the UN and Third World regimes — not the victims of those regimes, impoverished largely through domestic socialist policies imposed by the same corrupt regimes that will be propped up with more Western aid. More than a few governments and dictators also announced that they would be “aligning their national development plans with the Sustainable Development Agenda,” essentially ensuring a growing supply of poor people to exploit as a pretext for more UN-led global socialism. The UN document, formally entitled “Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” was adopted on Friday, September 25, at the start of the UN's three-day Summit on Sustainable Development in New York. Speaking at the opening ceremony of the confab, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon hinted at just how far-reaching the plot really is. “The new agenda is a promise by leaders to all people everywhere,” he explained, presumably conflating “leaders” with mass-murdering gangsters such as Kim Jong Un, Raul Castro, and Robert Mugabe who somehow managed to seize control over entire nations. “It is a universal, integrated and transformative vision for a better world.”
Admissions from Alarmists “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
Dr. Richard Lindzen is anything but convinced by headlines claiming 2015 is the warmest year on record. He says what’s most important is that climate models have been over-predicting warming for more than 40 years. “Frankly, I feel it is proof of dishonesty to argue about things like small fluctuations in temperature or the sign of a trend,” Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, tells the science blog Climate Depot. “Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?” “All that matters is that for almost 40 years, model projections have almost all exceeded observations,” Lindzen says. “Even if all the observed warming were due to greenhouse emissions, it would still point to low sensitivity.” Scientists with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared 2015 the hottest on record Wednesday, with the average global temperature reaching 0.87 degrees Celsius above the 20th century average. Democrats and environmentalists used the news to push for more government action on global warming, but what they neglected to mention is temperatures were driven up last year by an incredibly strong El Niño — a naturally occurring warming event. The strong El Niño briefly brought global temperatures to levels predicted by most climate models, but it’s likely that once the warming event goes away temperatures will move back down to levels well below what climate scientists say will happen if more carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere. “But, given the ‘pause.’ we know that natural internal variability has to be of the same order as any other process,” Lindzen says. Lindzen and other experts skeptical of hyped-up claims about man-made global warming argue those who claim 2015 is the hottest on record ignore the fact the changes in global temperature being observed are very small. He also cautions that surface-based temperature readings — taken by weather stations, buoys, ships and other means — are subject to biases and errors that can make them highly unreliable. Lindzen has pointed out in the past that “70% of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well.” “They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree,” he said in November. “Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.” Check out some of the badly sited weather stations collecting data:
