Climate-gate

[Photizo]

http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-seek-international-authority-climate-geoengineering-155225716.html

http://www.nationaljournal.com/ener...eatens-more-americans-than-terrorism-20150210

I think the greatest threat is the thinking that launches ham fisted attempts to head off what they think they are perceiving as a threat posed by what they think is a threat in the first place. It's this same thinking that then adds to that goofy mix the dismissing/diminishing of the very real threat posed by islamic terrorism. Then there are the sheeple before whom this insanity is all being played out and by whom the feckless gain ever increasing stature while simultaneously being lined up by those same feckless (by the sheeple's happy consent) for more frequent/intensive shearing.

He can't arrive soon enough.

 

[Kristoffer]

Please stop cramming God down everyones throats, Photizo.

 

[origin]

He can't arrive soon enough.

How do you know that?

 

[billvon]

It's this same thinking that then adds to that goofy mix the dismissing/diminishing of the very real threat posed by islamic terrorism.

No one is dismissing or diminishing the threat posed by Islamic terrorism. However, to the scaremonger's dismay, terrorism is not the only threat posed to Americans - nor even the biggest one, by several orders of magnitude.

 

[Photizo]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/20/republicans-to-investigate-climate-data-tampering-by-nasa/

 

[sculptor]

This from a 2010 senate hearing:

What does the material show?
What emerges from review of the emails and documents, which span a 13-year period from 1996 through November 2009, is much more than, as EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson put it, scientists who ―lack interpersonal skills.‖19
Rather, the emails show the world‘s leading climate scientists discussing, among other things: 
Obstructing release of damaging data and information; 
Manipulating data and knowingly using flawed climate models to reach preconceived conclusions; 
Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science ―consensus‖; and 
Assuming activist roles to influence the political proces

more at:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63

 

[billvon]

Climate myth #7 -
===========
Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
“[T]he 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. […] emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.” (Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun)
===========

Reality -

=============
Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.
=============

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm

 

[sculptor]

Is it that you think "skepticalscience.com" is unbiased, or apolitical?

 

[Billy T]

According to The New York Times, {see link of quote below} politicians fighting climate-change legislation often cite the work of the scientist, who is employed by the Smithsonian Institution on a part-time basis. Though he’s often referred to as a “Harvard astrophysicist” on conservative news shows, Soon has never worked for the Ivy League school. His degree is in aerospace engineering.

According to recently released documents, Soon has received at least $1.2 million from fossil-fuel companies while omitting that connection in the majority of his scientific papers over the past decade. Since 2008, he failed to disclose conflicts of interest in at least 11 studies—a violation of the guidelines of the journals that released them.

The documents, acquired by Greenpeace through the Freedom of Information Act, also show that Soon referred to his papers as “deliverables” in communication with his funders. His biggest sponsor: the Atlanta-based Southern Company, which has given him more than $400,000. It’s one of the biggest utility holding corporations in the United States, with major investments in coal-burning power plants.

Soon also received more than $200,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the founder of which amassed wealth in the oil-refinery business. Politicians who repeatedly cite Soon’s work include Republican Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahama, who in a Senate debate in January pointed to photos of scientists who doubt climate change. One of them was Soon.

“These are scientists that cannot be challenged,” Inhofe said.

Congress continues to delay regulations designed to curb climate change proposed by the Obama administration. On Feb. 11, Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee argued that the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan—intended to limit carbon pollution from power plants—doesn’t offer tangible benefits. Inhofe again expressed his doubt about global warming, saying that he wants to hold a climate science hearing.

For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests. ...

Here is the end of the NYT article:

Robert J. Strangeway, the editor of a journal that published three of Dr. Soon’s papers, said that editors relied on authors to be candid about any conflicts of interest. “We assume that when people put stuff in a paper, or anywhere else, they’re basically being honest,” said Dr. Strangeway, editor of the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.

Dr. Oreskes, the Harvard science historian, said that academic institutions and scientific journals had been too lax in recent decades in ferreting out dubious research created to serve a corporate agenda. “I think universities desperately need to look more closely at this issue,” Dr. Oreskes said. She added that Dr. Soon’s papers omitting disclosure of his corporate funding should be retracted by the journals that published them.

Hell, I have a Ph.D. in physic, more reliant to AGW, and will sell my honor for only half of what Soon has collected.

 

[milkweed]

Here is the end of the NYT article:

Hell, I have a Ph.D. in physic, more reliant to AGW, and will sell my honor for only half of what Soon has collected.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/21/week-in-review-44/#more-17835

Climate Wars

The paper published by Monckton et al. Why models run hot is creating quite a stir. Matt Briggs writes about the bizarre reaction by climate reporters [link] advertised by this tweet: Proof That Climate Reporters Are Uniformly Ignorant And Can’t Differentiate Science & Politics, and responds to a critique by Kevin Trenberth [link].


From above link (embedded in text):

Another reporter, a Justin Gillis, Environmental Science Writer for the left wing New York Times, wrote something similar. His email also admitted his relationship with Greenpeace.

Not one reporter asked about the paper Why Models Run Hot, a legitimate scientific question.

According to the authors, no funding was received from anyone and there is No Conflict of Interest to be declared. And as one can see from the nytimes article, there is no allegation of the current paper being funded by anyone, hence their references to Since 2008 or In the last decade Soon has received funding from.... No relevance to the current paper.

BTW, the Ice Caves on the S. Shore of Lake Superior will be open next weekend so if your in Northern Wisconsin.

 

[Billy T]

... The paper published by Monckton et al. Why models run hot is creating quite a stir. ...

Only among AGW deniers. It is really old crap and I too have long been critical of the IPPC's predictions. I also agree newspaper reports don't get it all correct when reporting good science, etc.
What fault can you find with the facts below that lead to probable conclusion that most warm blooded mammals, man included may be near or already extinct before 2100?

More carbon in the probable future flux of CH4 than in all the coal that ever existed. Methane "clouds" even a km in diameter are now bubbling up* in the Arctic Ocean as part of the Gulf Steam (salty water, more dense than low salt Artic Ocean water despite being warmer) is now flowing into the Arctic Ocean along the bottom, decomposing the methane hydrates there. CH4 is destroyed by reaction with the OH- radical and already removing the OH- radical faster than it can be generated by high up harsh UV.

So the half life of CH4 in air, now 12.6 years, is increasing by 0.3 years per year now. Already 1 kg of CH4 does more global warming than 100 kg of CO2 does in first decade after their simultaneous release. CO2 is already near saturation as an IR blocker (100 fold increase in CO2 concentration in air would only add slightly more ACW.); but CH4 is far from IR saturation limit. It is the:
(1) increasing CH4 release rate;
(2) the essentially unlimited supply of releasable CH4; and
(3) the growing half-life of CH4 that makes CH4 the route to man's extinction in less than 100 years.

To "buy" a decade or two more time before extinction, he could switch from gasoline to sugar cane based alcohol, which is slightly cheaper per mile driven, slightly CO2 negative, slightly more powerful in same IC engine, and cleaner burning so lower repair bills. Growing area for all the world's cars needing liquid fuel is LESS than the abandoned pasture land. Many low skill jobs would be created, moving marginal workers in to the cash economy using part of their salaries to buy products made in advanced economies. It is a win/win switch for all except "big oil."

* Theory said that could not happen as the terminal vertical speed of the tiny CH4 bubbles was so low that they would completely dissolve before reaching the surface. Neglected was the fact they lower the density of the water column above their releasing source, and the buoyant water column is lifting them to the surface before they can dissolve. Theory can not argue with facts; These bubble columns are being photographed and posted in internet videos. Links have been given in my old posts.

Here I why the older theory is wrong. Deep CH4 come to the surface:

At least 1000 times more than now in air is down there.

BTW the recent record setting cold wave is confirming the GW prediction of stronger and more extreme polar vortex effects bringing very cold air deeper south. The circumpolar jet stream is driven by the thermal difference between mid latitudes and the poles. That difference is decreasing with polar regions warming several times faster, so that jet stream is losing west to east momentum and wanders more North / South than before AGW. Your large photo, showing Lake Erie ice, is more confirmation of AGW.

 

[milkweed]

What fault can you find with the facts below that lead to probable conclusion that most warm blooded mammals, man included may be near or already extinct before 2100?

UN Backtracks: Will Global Warming Really Trigger Mass Extinctions?

The draft report includes a surprising admission by the IPCC -- that it doubts its own computer simulations for species extinctions. "There is very little confidence that models currently predict extinction risk accurately," the report notes. Very low extinction rates despite considerable climate variability during past hundreds of thousands of years have led to concern that "forecasts for very high extinction rates due entirely to climate change may be overestimated."

...Uncritically blaming climate change for species extinction is dangerous, Kinzelbach adds. Such an approach could transform climate change into a cheap excuse for failing to address pressing problems. "Monocultures, over-fertilization and soil destruction wipe out more species than a temperature rise of a few degrees Celsius," he says.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...-earlier-extinction-predictions-a-960569.html

BTW the recent record setting cold wave is confirming the GW prediction of stronger and more extreme polar vortex effects bringing very cold air deeper south. The circumpolar jet stream is driven by the thermal difference between mid latitudes and the poles. That difference is decreasing with polar regions warming several times faster, so that jet stream is losing west to east momentum and wanders more North / South than before AGW. Your large photo, showing Lake Erie ice, is more confirmation of AGW.

Billy You really Need to read more. Especially on subjects which contradict what you think is true. That alleged prediction (which was really a HINDCAST) has been discredited.

It's an interesting idea, but alternative observational analyses and simulations with climate models have not confirmed the hypothesis, and we do not view the theoretical arguments underlying it as compeling...

http://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/14_february_2014?pg=29#pg29

Methane... Seriously Billy you need to look for more info than that which conforms to your strongly held views.

What about that Arctic methane bomb?

Shakhova et al (2013) did not find or claim to have found a 50 Gt C reservoir of methane ready to erupt in a few years. That claim, which is the basis of the Whiteman et al (2013) $60 trillion Arctic methane bomb paper, remains as unsubstantiated as ever. The Siberian Arctic, and the Americans, each emit a few percent of global emissions. Significant, but not bombs, more like large firecrackers.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/arctic-and-american-methane-in-context/

More recently:

Despite large temperature increases in Alaska in recent decades, a new analysis of NASA airborne data finds that methane is not being released from Alaskan soils into the atmosphere at unusually high rates, as recent modeling and experimental studies have suggested. The new result shows that the changes in this part of the Arctic have not yet had enough impact to affect the global methane budget.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141113134856.htm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/arctic-and-american-methane-in-context/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanotroph

 

[Billy T]

I asked you to show some error in post 1710. Your reply is newspaper articles, obsolute IPPC errors (Some I have noted long ago as I too am critical of the IPPC) and you gave the irrelevant fact that there are CH4 eating bacteria that destroy less than 1% of the CH4 other bacteria produce and noted that the 50G ton methane bomb is not probable (and I agree, so I never mentioned it in post 1710 and will not defend your straw man) But no fact of post 1710 was even questioned, much less refuted.

So as post 1710 notes: Man and all but the very tiny warm-blooded animals is riding the non-stop, fast accelerating, "extinction train" and will not live to see year 2100.

... More recently:
(1) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/41113134856.htm
(2) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/arctic-and-american-methane-in-context/
(3)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanotroph

I'll try to get to your newspaper links, but working backwards, I note:
On (3) Yes there are living agents that can destroy CH4, but not nearly as much as other living agent produce CH4 from organic carbon, especially peat bogs no longer frozen.

in decades to come, from an Arctic perspective, methane will remain the primary contributor to Earth's greenhouse gas budget. ... In autumn, when the surface of the tundra freezes and ice is formed, large quantities of the powerful greenhouse gas methane are released. In fact, the quantities released were so large, that the annual methane emissions had to be doubled in the calculation of the tundra's methane budget. ...
Soil moisture crucial:
Recent studies have shown that the formation of methane is closely linked to the tundra's water content -- as implied by the term "swamp gas." The more water is present in the tundra, the more methane is formed. And vice versa, where there is less water, the presence of oxygen will provide the basis for formation of CO2. ... Areas that become drier will give rise to increased CO2 emissions, whereas areas that become more moist will cause the emissions of methane to increase.

That is why GW melting frozen tundra, is increasing the CH4 to CO2 ratio these "living agents" are producing.

On (2) This is an accurate article but makes this false statement:
"Methane is a short-lived gas in the atmosphere, so to make it rise, the emission flux has to continually increase. "
It is false as already the CH4 release rate is faster than the production rate of OH- radical. Why the half-life of CH4 is increasing at 0.3 year per year. I.e. even the present release rate of CH4 will increase and even accelerate the atmospheric concentration of CH4 as each molecule on average, stays more years in the air before being destroyed. - Obviously the current increasing rate of CH4 releases will only increase the CH4 air concentration faster still.

On (1) I agree that currently CH4 release rate from tundra (their study in Alaska in 2012 only) is not contributing much to CH4 in the air, but as they note:
"Vast amounts of carbon are stored in undecayed organic matter -- dead plants and animals -- in Arctic permafrost and peat. Scientists estimate that there is more than twice as much carbon locked in the frozen North as there is in the atmosphere today. The organic material won't decay and release its carbon as long as it stays frozen. But climate change has brought warmer and longer summers throughout the Arctic, and permafrost soils are thawing more and more. If large amounts of un-decayed matter were to defrost, decompose and release methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the impact on global temperatures would most likely be enormous."

Also please note I am not one speaking about a quick 50Gton methane bomb - just the current increasing rate of CH4 release. Fortunately, the annual increase is growing more slowly now as the natural gas & oil fracking industries are doing a better job of slowing their release rate; however, every year more is released than the prior year and it being removed from the air more slowly (half-life increasing at 0.3 years per year.)

You say: " That alleged prediction (which was really a HINDCAST) has been discredited." I don't believe that is true. Where and by whom, has the prediction of ever more polar vortex wander (Arctic air dipping deeper into the South more often) been "discredited." Surely not by anyone living in the current record braking cold that again this year coated the streets of Atlanta GA with ice and buried the NE of the US with deep snow.

 

[milkweed]

So as post 1710 notes: Man and all but the very tiny warm-blooded animals is riding the non-stop, fast accelerating, "extinction train" and will not live to see year 2100.I'll try to get to your newspaper links, but working backwards, I note:

You say: " That alleged prediction (which was really a HINDCAST) has been discredited." I don't believe that is true. Where and by whom, has the prediction of ever more polar vortex wander (Arctic air dipping deeper into the South more often) been "discredited." Surely not by anyone living in the current record braking cold that again this year coated the streets of Atlanta GA with ice and buried the NE of the US with deep snow.

Get back to me once you read the links (Picked the easiest to read/short pieces I could find for ease of use).

 

[Billy T]

Get back to me once you read the links (Picked the easiest to read/short pieces I could find for ease of use).

I've read them and a few hundred more. I'm still waiting for you to tell even one error in post 1710 - not give me more links to newspapers or irrelevant articles. For example your link: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanotroph" is such a tiny "sink" for CH4 that is in the air. Their activity may be why rice paddies supply about 25% of the man associated CH4 release instead of 26%. The fact that they exist, may some day be important if man tried to remove CH4 from the air, but not now. What they do is down in the uncertainty level. Here is a more detailed but less time extent of CH4 in air chart than the one shown in post 1710:

Above text was from memory - now I have searched again and find soil bacteria does remove about 5% of the CH4 removed from air - more than I remembered.

The largest estimated CH4 sinks include tropospheric destruction (approximately 80–90% annually) and oxidation in other parts of the atmosphere (5–10%), according to Lelieveld et al. (1998). The most common figure for gross oxidation by soil in terrestrial environments is ~30 ± 15 Tg CH4 (IPCC, 2007), which corresponds to 2.5–7.5% of the estimated 600 Tg CH4 budget per year

Note to even get 5% one must assume that there are no other oxidation process active in the soil, except the Methanotroph bacteria.

 

[milkweed]

I've read them and a few hundred more.

I dont believe you have read the links I posted.

 

[Billy T]

I dont believe you have read the links I posted.

Why not? I quoted from some of them, and pointed out error in one. I'll admit I only skim newspaper articles but read pier reviewed papers.
Again: What error is there in my post 1710? You are very non-responsive - I asked four times now.

 

[iceaura]

The paper published by Monckton et al. Why models run hot is creating quite a stir.

Monckton is a long-exposed fraud, with several disparate scams to his credit - here's an attempt at a comprehensive list, and even this one is incomplete: https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

sample quote, one paragraph from the middle of the list:

Making Up Fake Data

1. Lord Monckton made up data on atmospheric CO2 concentration and global mean temperature that he claimed were IPCC predictions. The CO2 projections were similar to the real ones, but significantly corrupted, and the temperature projections were the product of inputting the corrupted data into an equation not meant for this purpose. This has been addressed several times by Gavin Schmidt, John Nielsen-Gammon, Lucia Liljegren, and me. After I posted my critique, Monckton issued a blanket response to all those who criticized him for this, in which he claimed he was justified in attributing the fake projections to the IPCC, because that’s what they SHOULD HAVE gotten if they had done theirs right. I’m not kidding

The takehome is that Monckton has no training or expertise in any physical science.

Not one reporter asked about the paper Why Models Run Hot, a legitimate scientific question.

According to the authors, no funding was received from anyone and there is No Conflict of Interest to be declared

Monckton has flagrant conflicts of interest, including receiving funding from the Heartland Institute et al. Any author voluntarily associating themselves with Monckton is probably also a liar and scam artist.

When I mentioned before that you were being played by these "sources" you keep quoting, it was an observation. It's not a subtle point, or matter of opinion. Monckton is a professional con man. Seriously.

 

[Billy T]

Monckton is a long-exposed fraud, with several disparate scams to his credit - here's an attempt at a comprehensive list, and even this one is incomplete: https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/ sample quote, one paragraph from the middle of the list:

The takehome is that Monckton has no training or expertise in any physical science.

Monckton has flagrant conflicts of interest, including receiving funding from the Heartland Institute et al. Any author voluntarily associating themselves with Monckton is probably also a liar and scam artist.

When I mentioned before that you were being played by these "sources" you keep quoting, it was an observation. It's not a subtle point, or matter of opinion. Monckton is a professional con man. Seriously.

Thanks. I just knew it was trash, of interest only to ignorant climate change deniers, who don't know enough to recognize trash. Too bad smell does not come thur the internet - then even those ignorant deniers might get a clue.

 

[Photizo]

Character matters. http://www.juno-news.com/news/read/...un_climate_panel_steps_down_amid_harassmen-ap