.JPG "Earthen Spirituality")
Living within a living, loving planet
Global Warming
A very Clever Observation
Mar 2nd
TheIndependenceof Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
Posted on 1 March 2012 by Dikran Marsupial
http://www.skepticalscience.com/essenhigh_rebuttal.html
The author of this Skeptical Science post has used a very clever method to counter claims that the present and persistent rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic. He managed to get a peer reviewed paper published on this subject because most scientists find it so obvious that there was nothing published to cite as an argument against the naysayers.
When you check his blog you’ll see that the Earth is a net carbon sync but just can’t keep up with the human caused emissions.
Another interesting fact is that the ocean is absorbing a net gain in carbon [becoming more acidic] and not as most would think. Opinion is that as the ocean temperature increases it outgases CO2. Time for a rethink, huh?
Climate Skepticism Efforts
Feb 17th
Heartland Institute’s Leaked Documents Reveal Climate Skepticism Efforts
AP SETH BORENSTEIN
Updated: 02/16/2012 6:55 pm
“Leaked documents from a prominent conservative think tank show how it sought to teach schoolchildren skepticism about global warming and planned other behind-the-scenes tactics using millions of dollars in donations from big corporate names.”
“Because Heartland was not specific about what was fake and what was real, The Associated Press attempted to verify independently key parts of separate budget and fundraising documents that were leaked. The federal consultant working on the classroom curriculum, the former TV weatherman, aChicagoelected official who campaigns against hidden local debt and two corporate donors all confirmed to the AP that the sections in the document that pertained to them were accurate. No one the AP contacted said the budget or fundraising documents mentioning them were incorrect.”
“The documents showed how heavily Heartland relies on a single person it identified only as “Anonymous Donor.” In the past six years, the man has given $14.26 million to the institute, nearly half its $33.9 million in revenue.”
When you find that there are 25.4 million (American million) millionaires which includes 1,200 billionaires, can you be surprised that one or more of these people can purchase, in so many words, public opinion? Is there a doubt that English author Edward Bulwer-Lytton was right when he said in 1839: “The pen is mightier than the sword”
We are in big trouble with our almost totally self-serving institutions. It is ‘kinda’ late now to do anything about it as we look forward to begging for crumbs as they take our dear Gaia and most lifeforms down the tube with them.
Why so many climate change deniers?
Jan 29th
I think James makes some really valid points here and I’m glad that he is again speaking out.
James Hansen 27 January, 2011
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120127_CowardsPart1.pdf
“The scientific method requires objective analysis of all data, stating evidence pro and con, before reaching conclusions. This works well, indeed is necessary, for achieving success in science. But science is now pitted in public debate against the talk-show method, which consists of selective citation of anecdotal bits that support a predetermined position.”
“Today most media, even publicly-supported media, are pressured to balance every climate story with opinions of contrarians, climate change deniers, as if they had equal scientific credibility.”
“Media are dependent on advertising revenue of the fossil fuel industry, and in some cases are owned by people with an interest in continuing business as usual. Fossil fuel profiteers can readily find a few percent of the scientific community to serve as mouthpieces — all scientists practice skepticism, and it is not hard to find some who are out of their area of expertise, who may enjoy being in the public eye, and who are limited in scientific insight and analytic ability.”
“Distinguished scientific bodies such as national science academies, using the scientific method, can readily separate charlatans and false interpretations from well-reasoned science. Yet it seems that our governments and the public are not making much use of their authoritative scientific bodies. Why is that?
I believe that the answer, and the difficulty in communicating science to the public, is related to the corrosive influence of money in politics and to increased corporate influence on the media.”
Sky: With 24.2 million millionaires about it is not unbelievable that some might be corrosive!
“Some clarification of what this is about, the secret efforts of Lords, the wealthy, the privileged, to dupe the public in our democracies into supporting their continued and growing privileges, is provided by this news article and press release:”
“Clive Hamilton, professor of public ethics atAustralia’s Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, has backed Mr Montague’s case.
Professor Hamilton is a long-time critic of think-tanks promoting outlying views on the risks of human-caused climate change, including the Melbourne-basedInstituteofPublic Affairs.
‘The public should know who is funding climate denial so they can properly judge the information put out by organisations like the Global Warming Policy Foundation,’ he said.”
“TheUK’s Charity Commission, which regulates charities in theUK, is being asked to release a document that would show the start-up funders of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, chaired by formerUKchancellor Lord Nigel Lawson.
Launched in November 2009, the foundation has consistently challenged the mainstream scientific view that human emissions of greenhouse gases represent a significant risk to the planet and societies.”
“Mr Montague, who has worked for national newspapers the Sunday Times and the Daily Mail in the UK, said because Lord Lawson’s charity was lobbying heavily for changes in climate change and energy policy, this could affect the lives of ‘millions of people’.
‘Climate change will have dramatic impacts inAustralia,’ he told brisbanetimes.com.au.
‘Therefore it would be unfair on the people ofAustraliafor aUKthink-tank to be trying to influence government policy that’s funded by unknown sources.’”
”In interviews, Lord Lawson, whose daughter is TV chef Nigella, described wind farms as ‘primitive and inefficient’, dismissed climate change computer models as “clearly rubbish” and claimed scientists were not in agreement about the risks of rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
During the debate, co-sponsored by The Spectator Magazine and the free-market think-tank the Institute for Public Affairs, Lord Lawson said anyone who claimed carbon dioxide was ‘pollution’ or ‘dirty’ was ‘either ignorant or a liar.’
Poll: Should climate change think-tanks on both sides of the debate be forced to declare who is funding their work?
90%
No, it would not change the credibility of think-tanks’ claims
10%
Total votes: 1061.
Sky: If we, speaking for non-professional climatologists, are to be able to sift through the propaganda and find something near the truth, we must be familiar with the fundamentals. Find below some background on the source of the Earth’s surface heat and what keeps us from being permanently frozen as we would be without the greenhouse effect.
http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/factors/radiation.html
Solar Radiation
Solar radiation drives atmospheric circulation. Since solar radiation represents almost all the energy available to the Earth, accounting for solar radiation and how it interacts with the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface is fundamental to understanding the Earth’s energy budget.
Solar radiation [6000K] reaches the Earth’s surface either by being transmitted directly through the atmosphere (“direct solar radiation”), or by being scattered or reflected to the surface (“diffuse sky radiation”). About 30 percent of solar (or shortwave) radiation is reflected back into space, while the remaining shortwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere is absorbed by the Earth’s surface and re-radiated as thermal infrared (or longwave) [longwave radiation is heat radiation (4 micrometers)] radiation.
“The atmosphere is nearly transparent to short-wave radiation, but is relatively opaque to long-wave radiation” http://mysite.du.edu/~etuttle/weather/atmrad.htm
“Solar energy enters our atmosphere as shortwave radiation in the form of ultraviolet (UV) rays (the ones that give us sunburn) and visible light.”
“Most of the energy emitted from the earth’s surface does not go directly out to space. This emitted energy is reabsorbed by clouds and by the gases in the atmosphere. Some of it gets redistributed by convection. Even more energy is released into the atmosphere through condensation. The majority of the energy is reabsorbed by the greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, carbon dioxide and water vapor. These gases constantly emit the sun’s energy back into the atmosphere and keep the earth a habitable temperature. Eventually, most of the energy makes its way back out to space and Earth’s energy balance is fairly well maintained. The energy that doesn’t make its way out is responsible for global warming.
On a global scale, the atmosphere’s circulation and weather [Sky: serves as] an attempt to balance differences in solar energy that the earth receives across the globe. Sunlight at the tropics is intense and direct and a lot of heating of land, atmosphere and oceans occur there. Sunlight in the polar regions is weak and indirect and does not do a good job of heating up the region. Currents in wind and ocean water carry energy from the tropics toward the poles to help balance out the energy differences across the globe.”
http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.EnergyBalance
Back to: http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/factors/radiation.html
The intensity of solar radiation striking a horizontal surface is measured by a pyranometer. The instrument consists of a sensor enclosed in a transparent hemisphere that records the total amount of shortwave incoming solar radiation. That is, pyranometers measure “global” or “total” radiation: the sum of direct solar and diffuse sky radiation. Incoming (or “downwelling”) longwave radiation is measured with a pyrgeometer. Outgoing (“upwelling”) longwave radiation is measured in various ways, such as with pyrgeometers or with sensors that measure the temperature of the surface.
Accurate estimates of albedo are especially important as albedo places a fundamental limit on the amount of solar radiation that can be absorbed by the surface. For example, albedo strongly determines the rate of melt of sea ice. Over longer periods of time, changes in components of the radiation balance can be manifested in climate change.
Here is a clear explanation from a comment by: JohnDM Croydon January 27, 2012 5:53 AM
“JohnDM, it’s not a climate debate you need, it’s a science lesson.
“Earth is warmed by absorption of short wave sunlight. Because of this, Earth’s temperature can remain unchanged by returning the same amount of energy to space. That is, solar shortwave energy is balanced by the earth re-radiating to space as a ‘black body’ radiator with a characteristic temperature of ~255K; that is, from space the earth’s spectrum is roughly that of a radiating body with an optical surface temperature of around 255K.
Earth’s surface cools by evaporation of excited water molecules, heat transfer to deeper sea and to polar ice caps and by convection and radiation back into and through the atmosphere. At higher altitudes, where the atmosphere gets less dense, the proportion of energy (heat) transfer by long wave ‘thermal’ (microwave) radiation increases. Observing earth’s spectrum from space has big absorption bands due to greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere. Prominent among these is carbon dioxide (CO2).
Greenhouse gases such as H2O, CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), CFC’s, and ozone (O3) absorb, then re-emit, some longwave wavelengths. About half of the re-emitted radiation is diverted back down toward the surface, as confirmed by radiation measurements at both surface and satellite observatories. This discrepancy increases with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration.
Heat thus accumulates at the surface, 85% of which heat warms oceans, accelerating ice melting.”
Climate Change Skeptics
Jan 21st
“Skepticism about climate change comes with a particularly rich irony. Many doubters cite the earth’s past cycles of glaciation and warming to discount what we are seeing today as nothing but natural variation. How do the skeptics know of that climate history? From the very scientists whose conclusions they now doubt!” Jeff Schweitzer
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/opinion-fact-and-hubris-o_b_1130039.html?view=screen
Knowing that many climate change skeptics have been paid to dredge up whatever warmed-over arguments they can find to confuse and misconstrue the issues is annoying, but what annoys me the most is what I call “muddy the waters.” It goes something like this. Alice says to Sam, “I think this is one of the coldest mornings we have had this year.” But instead of agreeing or disagreeing and citing alternative evidence to support a negative response, Sam says, “Oh but I’ve seen colder.” Therefore, Sam’s response deflects and changes the point raised and forces an affirmative response. So now,Alice may choose to just let it go or start over. After a couple of further exchanges Sam has in effect obtained agreement on his point and nullified Alice’s original point altogether.
Another favourite prevarication is to ignore the point and spend time establishing the validity of a side issue. This may be called “skirting the issue.” Similarly, the skeptic may pull you away from the point you are trying to make by refusing to respond about your point at all and making statements about a different point that lead you to agree. Then you find yourself agreeing but not about your point. Then often the skeptic will refuse to continue along that avenue leaving an affirmative in the air so to speak.
Vital Issues not Understood
Jan 17th
I like the way Orenstein puts this thought!
Guest post by Nick Orenstein
“We find ourselves at a time where advances in scientific discovery and information gathering have accelerated faster than the general public’s understanding of issues equally vital to everyone on Earth. As a result, many non-scientists among us are: confused by too much math, politically biased by convenient half-truths, or somehow religiously opposed to the consequences of the scientific data.”
View the source Here
Background of the Hockey Stick and Climategate controversies
Dec 29th
I think you will find this article very interesting.
Sky
Michael Mann, hounded researcher
http://www.skepticalscience.com/MichaelMann.html
Posted on 30 December 2011 by Andy S
“Here is a translation of recent article (December 25th, 2011) in the French newspaper Le Monde by science journalist Stéphane Foucart. He reports on a talk that Michael Mann gave at the 2011 AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco, in which Mann introduces his forthcoming book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. Foucart interviews Mann and discusses the background of the Hockey Stick and Climategate controversies. What is refreshing is the absence of the false balance, both-sides-of-the-story, style of reporting that is found so often in English language newspapers. ”
“Those who attack us have won in the sense that they have succeeded in delaying any action on global warming by ten, twenty, maybe thirty years,” he concedes with worry as he sees his country succumbing to anti-science. “Denying either anthropogenic climate change or evolution has become a condition of admission to the Republican Party. That’s something quite new and very scary”.
Another warm year during a La Nina
Dec 2nd
The World Meterological Organisation
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/gcs_2011_en.html
reports their preliminary results for 2011. It should be regarded as shocking that although we were in a very strong La Niña state which usually results in .10 to .15C cooler temperatures than preceeding years, 2011 was warmer than most recent moderate to strong La Niña years. It seems obvious to me that we will now have an even hotter El Niño period.
“The 10-year average for the period 2002-11, at 0.46°C above the long-term average, equals 2001-10 as the warmest 10-year period on record.”
Artic Sea ice
Arctic sea ice extent was again well below normal in 2011. “Sea ice volume was even further below average and was estimated at a new record low of 4200 cubic kilometres, surpassing the record of 4580 cubic kilometres set in 2010.”
Droughts and floods
There was severe drought in the North American southwest, record-breaking inTexas, with the highest ever recorded temperature for any American state. “The January-October period was the wettest on record for several north-eastern states and for the north-east region as a whole, with precipitation totals widely 30-50% above normal.”
Hurricane Irene in August and Tropical Storm Lee in September brought extreme flooding. “Parts of the Mississippi River experienced the worst floods since 1933, and there was also major flooding in theMissouri Riverand several Canadian rivers.”
As if this wasn’t enough, “it was also one of the most active tornado seasons on record, with numerous major outbreaks, particularly in April and May. A tornado caused 157 deaths inJoplin,Missouriin May, the deadliest single tornado in theUnited Statessince 1947. 2011 (to date) has had the third-greatest number of tornadoes since 1950, after 2004 and 2008, and the fourth-greatest number of deaths (537) on record. There were also a number of major snowstorms, including the most significant October snowstorm on record in the north-eastern states.”
These were Global events
“For the second year in succession,Pakistanexperienced severe flooding in 2011. The floods were more localised than in 2010, being largely confined to the southern part of the country. It was the wettest monsoon season on record for theprovinceofSindh(247% above normal).”
More studies reveal a warming planet
Oct 21st
From the Berkeley Earth Project
“Climategate” accusations proven false by new study by the Berkeley Earth funded by the same people who funded the climate change skeptics. Data from 40,000 weather stations was checked and: “What came out was a graph remarkably similar to those produced by the world’s three most important and established groups, whose work had been decried as unreliable and shoddy in climate skeptic circles.” Skeptics claimed that the data was inaccurately compiled and did not reflect an upward trend in global warming. “Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the USand the UK,” said Professor Muller.
True or not, it is too late. The false accusations have been accepted as true by many who wish them to be true. A great number of people have not closed their minds to anything scientists say and choose to believe that climate change warnings are a conspiracy formulated by greenies who use scientific evidence to further their own agenda We all k now of instances where a false accusation gets wide coverage and a reputation is ruined. Few read the news that the accusation was false and malicious. It is too late to regain a good reputation once it has been drug through the mud. Global warming is old news now and very few wish to ditch the tragic belief in permanent economic growth and prosperity. People in countries such as Greece are turning violent when their government attempts to cut wages and services to the poor whilst the rich get richer. Meanwhile, glaciers and polar ice melt at an ever expanding rate, ocean levels rise, large populations are threatened, erratic weather conditions expand and CO2 levels continue to rise. It is past time to stop arguing about what is precisely causing it and simply do something to arrest the damage.
Reference:
Global warming ‘confirmed’ by independent study
By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News
21 October 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071
Which is it? It can’t be both.
Aug 11th
Although methane (CH4) has always been included in charts and diagrams relating to greenhouse gasses, The potential hazard from the The East Siberian Artic Shelf which extends for 2 million square kilometers has until recently been ignored.
“In its last major report in 2001, the intergovernmental panel on climate change predicted a rise in global temperatures of 1.4C-5.8C between 1990 and 2100, but the estimate only takes account of global warming driven by known greenhouse gas emissions.
“These positive feedbacks with landmasses weren’t known about then. They had no idea how much they would add to global warming,” said Dr Viner.” [David Viner, a senior scientist at the Climatic Research Unit at theUniversityofEast Anglia]
Ian Sample, science correspondent Thursday August 11, 2005 The Guardian
Since 2005, a few articles have been available to the layperson, however most of the fuss has been about CO2, a direct consequence of industrial, commercial and private activity. Unfortunately, there are several indirect possibilities, some that may be “tipping points” that trip a positive feedback loop which many scientists fear may spiral out of control. The artic tundra is one of them. In a recent article from the BBC news, Michael Fitzpatrick reports:
“The findings come from measurements of carbon fluxes around the north ofRussia, led by Igor Semiletov from theUniversityofAlaskaatFairbanks.
‘Methane release from the East Siberian Shelf is underway and it looks stronger than it was supposed [to be],’” he said.
Interesting how researchers are frequently revealing that global warming indications are often more serious than anticipated. I suppose it is easier and more politically correct to underestimate and then express surprise than to report on the high side and retract after people have sacrificed perhaps needlessly.
Fitzpatrick continues:
“Methane seepage recorded last summer was already the highest ever measured in theArctic Ocean. Acting as a giant frozen depository of carbon such as CO2 and methane (often stored as compacted solid gas hydrates),Siberia’s shallow shelf areas are increasingly subjected to warming and are now giving up greater amounts of methane to the sea and to the atmosphere than recorded in the past.”
What is a hydrate?
“WHAT do you get when you combine water and swamp gas under low temperatures and high pressures? You get a frozen latticelike substance called methane hydrate, huge amounts of which underlie our oceans and polar permafrost. This crystalline combination of a natural gas and water (known technically as a clathrate) looks remarkably like ice but burns if it meets a lit match. …Because methane is also a greenhouse gas, release of even a small percentage of total deposits could have a serious effect on Earth’s atmosphere.”
https://www.llnl.gov/str/Durham.html
Is this a problem?
Back to the Fitzpatrick article.
The left hand says: “Despite the high readings, Professor Gustafsson said that so far there was no cause for alarm, and stressed that further studies were still necessary to determine the exact cause of the methane seepage.”
The right hand says: “The release of this once captive carbon from destabilised ocean sediments and permafrost would have catastrophic effect on our climate and life on Earth, warn the scientists.”
No wonder we are confused and millions of people are turning a blind eye on global warming. If you are a skeptic, then you can quote the left hand. If you are a believer, then you can cite the right hand. This is somewhat like placing equal bets on the red and black numbers, around the roulette wheel. You are always a winner so it can be business as usual and you can claim that you are a team player.
Is the gulf stream slowing down?
May 31st
BBC News
Gulf Stream ‘is not slowing down’
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/8589512.stm
“The Gulf Stream does not appear to be slowing down, say US scientists who have used satellites to monitor tell-tale changes in the height of the sea.”
*****denotes Sky’s comments
****We need to know what scientists and what satellites and how the height of the sea can be used to measure ocean current flow.*****
******Of course, not being an Oceanographer, I cannot understand how a satellite can replace a flow meter for measuring the rate of current flow past a particular point across the Atlantic current.****
****There is a new satellite going up next month that will measure salinity. Salinity is a major player in the conveyor belt action of the Atlantic current. The more fresh water that mixes with the warm, salty surface water moving north, the lower in latitude will be drop which effectively terminates the flow. When the overturn and dropping of the heavier and cooled current occurs lower than the British Isles, then the average temperature will drop several degrees [ 4 to 6c] as is commonly known. If Artic ice and northern glaciers continue to melt, then the warm surface water will inevitably be pushed further south. Since there are absolutely no other known factors at present that can drive temperatures down, then it seems obvious to me that this will happen. It is just a matter of time.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-satellite-will-measur
“Confirming work by other scientists using different methodologies, they found dramatic short-term variability but no longer-term trend.”
***I very much doubt if measurements have been going on long enough to establish a longer-term trend. What is the definition of ‘longer-term? 10 years, 50 years, 100 years? In an article by this correspondent 16 August, 2007 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/6946735.stm] NOC’s Professor Harry Bryden said “But the reality is that anything we measure over 10 years even is going to be labelled interannual variability at the moment.” In 2007, the National Oceanographic Centre in Southhampton reported the following: “Last year the same UK-led team published evidence that the circulation may have weakened by about 30% over half a century. But that was based on historical records from just five sampling expeditions, raising concerns that the data was not robust enough to provide a clear-cut conclusion.” I think somebody got their hands slapped over this reporting because even though the flow meters have been extended and copious data has been collected, no spokesperson has emerged to make it clear, or at least clear to me, whether there is a downward turn of ocean current flow. *****
“The research is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.”
**** I searched but cannot find anything there. Of course, not having the document title makes it very difficult to find!!***
***There are hundreds of papers published here. Richard Black cites us no references for which we can use to find the paper***
“Between 2002 and 2009, the team says, there was no trend discernible – just a lot of variability on short timescales.”
****Has this satellite been up since 2002 collecting data? If so then this “team” has been very quiet. I wonder if this sudden assurance is due to the findings reported by theoretical physicist, Dr. Gianluigi Zangari, of the prestigious Research Division of the National Institute of Nuclear Physics at Frascati National Laboratories (LNF) of the National Institute of Nuclear Physics [http://www.lnf.infn.it/public/] who claims that the Gulf stream or ‘loop current’ in the Gulf of Mexico has stopped and further suggests this is due to the BP oil spill cutting down the vorticity of the current [vorticity is simply put the ‘flowingness’ of water.] Dr. Zangari claims that satellite photos show evidence of the loop current status. Now, I don’t know how credible Dr. Zangari is or whether he is just a maverick or whether he is being ignored purposely. I can’t even find a reference as to when and where Dr. Zangari published. All I have so far is the word of a person who calls himself Stirling. Stirling claims that Dr. Zangari said the following: “The Gulf Stream importance in the global climate themoregulation processes is well assessed. The latest real time satellite (Jason, Topex/Poseidon, Geosat Follow-On, ERS-2, Envisat) data maps of May-June 2010 processed by CCAR (Dolorado Center for Astrodynamics Research), checked at Frascati Laboratories by the means of the SHT congruent calculus and compared with past years data, show for the first time a direct evidence of the rapid breaking of the Loop Current, a warm ocean current, crucial part of the Gulf Stream” Perhaps I have missed something?
Can anyone help me check this out? ***