The wacky world of climate science

Or why the public doesn't pay attention to the 'experts'. Sometimes scientists open their mouths in public and prove themselves irrelevant. Perhaps this guy missed his calling as a comedian.

Running runs out of plants. Professor Running has followed his model to the conclusion that the Earth may run out of plants.

Some musings on this research can be found here at Greenie Watch.

Quote:

"Publicity-hungry scientists find a goldmine in global warming. Just think up some extreme implication of it and the media will be all over you. It is a temptation to which many respond. "Running out of plants" is however a more extreme extrapolation than usual.

It is so ignorant that it is difficult to know where to start when critiquing it -- so I will mention just two main points. The biggest fallacy is in regarding the total biomass on earth as fixed. It is not. It is responsive to two major factors: Water availability and carbon availability. Plants are almost entirely made up of water and carbon. And guess what the global warming theory implies: More water (through evaporation of the seas) and more carbon in the form of CO2. Plants like warmer temperatures too. So the clear implication of global warming is that we should have A LOT MORE plantlife in future. So bring on that CO2!

The other main point is China. China shows vividly how responsive to politics plants are. China under Mao was a major food importer. Australian wheat farmers blessed him regularly. Under a more capitalistic system, however, China is a major food exporter -- being in fact the world's biggest exporter of fruit and vegetables. You have probably seen Chinese offerings in the Produce section of your local supermarket. So if we really are running low on food plants, bring on more capitalism! Capitalism is good for plants too! -- JR"

End quote

To keep up with peer reviewed research on plant response to CO2 enrichment click here.

CO2 has been exhaled during the creation of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.

Spume

Spume: Foam or froth of water, particularly that of sea water.

There is a story on Yahoo News this morning (Sept. 27, 2012) concerning a storm in a Scottish village near Aberdeen, Scotland that showed its coastline covered in a foamy substance like suds from a huge washing machine had been dumped upon it. This is an unusual occurrence but not unprecedented. Although the extent of it was new to me we have all seen some foam form where the waves hit the beach.

"The sea is acting like a washing machine," said Professor Chris Todd of the University of St Andrews' Scottish Oceans Institute, referring to how the combination of strong winds and waves was mixing air into the water with natural organic materials.
"It is likely there are phytoplankton cells and they produce a lot of mucus which when whipped up can form this foam." he added.

Apparently, 'was it a Hurricane Irene'  stirred up a frothy mixture and deposited the suds upon a reporter who was braving her winds to bring us the story.

Will Al Gore and the rest of the hysterical press include this incident among its attempt to convince us of the unprecedented nature of the  severe weather the world has experienced lately? This is my attempt to 'normalize' the occurrence for the easily excitable lest they attempt to blame CO2 for this phenomenon as well.

There is even a word for it in the dictionary presenting testimony to its past occurrences.The word dates from the 14th century.

Don't fret. The world has survived spume in the past and there will be future instances to alarm those who need their daily dose of atmospheric drama.

A story about apples in 2012

Ontario apple crop hit hard by severe spring freeze. 80% wiped out.

Similar happenings in Russia.

Here is what is happening to apples in Oregon

Sometimes the weather is not kind to food prices.

BC apple growers will be happy to make up the short fall.

Selling global warming

Try selling me GLOBAL warming from here

Vostok at -119F. Brrrrr.,,,,,

Kinda takes the GLOBAL outta 'global warming' don't it?

Hot here; cold there

Heat distribution not so rare.

It is tough to find it warming everywhere.

I guess CO2 can't be trapping heat everywhere at once. 

Change is what the climate does. Gets no help from us.

CO2 has been exhaled during the creation of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.

Pogo Science

"We have met the enemy and he is us." ~Pogo

There is a modern branch of science that worships this view. Or, rather, there are scientists who believe that man is responsible for the destruction of the environment, the wonton depletion of resources and the global warming they say is going to roast our butts if we don't immediately stop industrial society from emitting carbon dioxide. Being duly convinced of the accuracy and righteousness of their observations confirmation bias drives their political activism to the detriment of the truth. These scientists become like doctors who refuse to help despite having taken the Hippocratic Oath. Somehow these scientists know how the world works and data to the contrary must be wrong or ignored. They are blessed. They are the chosen. Cognitive dissonance has no place in Pogo science since they know who the enemy is. They are self-anointed.

"The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man." ~Club of Rome

And yet, it is cognitive dissonance contrasted with confirmation bias presented transparently on the same table that results in the distillation of the truth. Self assurance is no guide to verity but can be an impediment to its discovery. 

Pogo science does not care about the truth. It is the end that drives policy. Pogo science begins with the premise that humans are the source of the world's problems and that they need to be controlled by the self appointed philosopher kings for the sake of the planet. Scientific observations which confirm this bias are used to 'legitimize' the view. Contrary opinion is ignored or attacked as funded by vested interests as if funding can determine truth.

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or…. one invented for the purpose." ~Club of Rome

Pogo science lives in the mind of the alarmist and politics drives Pogo science. Invention reinforced with repetition by a complicit media (we love a good scare story) accommodates the politician's need to feed his crony capitalist constituents a share of the spoils of election and his need to be regaled with accolades as he defends the environment against the rapacious and uncaring nature of unbridled consumption. The need for research funding fuels the search for crises that will attract that funding from politicians who apportion the research grants. Scares attract funding. Exaggeration of the scares will raise the profile of the problem and attract additional funding. Media hype. Political cronyism. 'Scientific' amplification. They feed each other in a mutually satisfying circle of certainty. 

The casualty often excluded from the circle is the truth. 

But veracity is not important, only the goal. And the goal is control.


They want to control how you transport your groceries.
They want to control the light bulbs you use.
They want to control how your dispose of your garbage.
They want to control what you eat.
They want to control how you get from place to place.
They want to control the origin of your electricity.
They want to control your thermostat - 68 everyone, no higher in winter.
They want to control your procreation.
They want to control your access to health care.
They want to control how many people get to exist on the planet. 
They want to control your access to data.
They want to control your access to communication.
They want to control your freedom.

Give them your freedom and you give them your life.

Sensitize the populous to environmental control with recycling, plastic bags, light bulbs and then move to the big stuff. 

Pogo science leads to tyranny by the keepers of the data, the philosopher kings and their media lapdogs.

“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”
Vaclav Klaus
Blue Planet in Green Shackles

Not everyone buys into the misanthropic nature of human action. Some of us have not lost sight of the good that humans do. As Christina Aguilera sings: Things Keep Getting Better. Below are some antidotes to the acrid message of the Club of Rome.









 






We have also met the solution and he is us. Until someone can show me that there is a limit to the ingenuity of the human brain my faith in net human goodness will remain unshaken.

For our alarmist friends

How to handle a hot day.....

How does CO2 do it?

Wednesday, June 20, 2012, in Toronto, the temperature set a record - .3C higher than 1949's 33.3. That heat trapping gas CO2 was working well.

Today, June 22,  the temperature is a more seasonable 25C. What happened to the heat trapping ability of CO2? How come it is cooler? Did we lose CO2 overnight? Did it move out? Did the sun disappear? Did CO2 stop working? Can we fix it?

And what happened to CO2 on Jan. 16, 2009 in Caribou, Maine.

In Maine it is weather. In Toronto, it is a sure sign of global warming. Maine is not under a glacier today and my blood is not boiling in Toronto except at the idiots that scream AGW! Look, it is back to normal two days later.


How come we have a humidex but no CO2 index? What would it tell us?

JAXA: why is no one talking about IBUKI

The Japanese satellite IBUKI was sent up into earth orbit to gather information on the net emissions of CO2 coming from different areas of the world. The results were surprising in that they do not support the IPCC and MSM view that the industrialized nations of the world were adding CO2 to the atmosphere and thus were responsible for the global warming of the late twentieth century.

It turns out that the industrialized world are net carbon dioxide sinks and that the under-developed world are the ones who are net emitters of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This does not support the view of those who would like to redistribute the wealth of the have nations to the have-nots based on the 'damage' done to the planet by their emissions of CO2.

In fact CO2 emissions in the US are plummeting toward 1990 levels all without a carbon tax or a cap and trade policy. Pity the Aussies and Kiwis.

If the evidence doesn't fit the worldview then ignore the data. Don't admit it. Don't try to reconcile it. Just ignore it. Maybe it will go away.

But, of course, there is no damage done by CO2. It is a trace gas essential to life on Earth and flora love it.

This should be good news. CO2 was exhaled during the creation of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.

Cathartic Arctic

A review of the modern  history of the Arctic should prove cathartic for the end times worriers among us.

Modern catastrophic anthropogenic global warmists view the loss of sea ice in the Arctic as a harbinger of disaster for the earth if we do not cut our emissions of CO2. In the summer of 2012 a new modern record low was set. Hysteria has followed. It is our Earth waving the white flag of surrender on climate change.

To remind them of the history of Arctic change in the last century will perhaps allay their fears.

1923 hitherto unheard of high temperatures in the Arctic

1940 warmer in the North by 6 degrees

1947 warming of climate causes concern

The 1920s to 1950s were a period of rapid warming in the last century. Our current worries about the Arctic are mirrored in the press of yesteryear. Scientists then speculated about the catastrophic results of a continued warming. It didn't happen and we are again in a warm period for the Arctic even as world temperatures taper off. Contemporary scientists are engaged in a guessing game as to when the Arctic will be ice free in the summer. Several predictions have passed without success. There is no consensus.

An explanation for the current conditions in the Arctic is provided here by meteorologist, Joe Bastardi.The Arctic Oscillation also contributes to the periodic changes that we have witnessed in the Arctic.

Arctic melting has been survived many times in the past.

Climate change is cyclical. Learning what drives these cycles and how to predict them should go a long way towards alleviating our fears. There is nothing out of the ordinary going on in the Arctic that hasn't happened there in the past. Change is what the climate does. We can all breathe a sigh of relief and enjoy the warmth of the interglacial and hope that the return of the next glacial period is tardy.

CO2 has been exhaled during the creation of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.

Flights of Fancy

“If u don't 'believe' in the science of climate change (that it isnt real or man-made) then u believe 1000s of scientists are lying. “

So says an actor by the name of Rainn Wilson who plays "Dwight Schrute" on the TV program ‘The Office’. 
Amy Brenneman tweets "So weird Romney is proud of not making global warming a priority. Like being proud of driving drunk."

Actors must immerse themselves in fanciful worlds to play the characters that entertain us. Most actors are able to switch back and forth between their roles and their real selves. Those that cannot remain immersed in self delusion. The expertise of an actor might well qualify them  to spot delusions in the real world.

However, some can’t extricate themselves from their imaginary worlds long enough to recognize the real world. They get confused. Let us help Mr Wilson and Ms Brenneman reacquaint themselves with the real world.

Change is what the climate does. Scientists regularly argue back and forth until they discover reality or how the world really works. Rainn seems to be unaware that there is another opinion of how the climate operates that does not support the Statements for Policymakers published by the IPCC. Some of the scientists who worked for the IPCC do not support those conclusions.

Rainn, you can read about that dissent here and here and here and here.

Did Mr Dan Schectman believe his colleagues were lying or just mistaken? It turned out that the conventional wisdom, the settled science, the consensus was wrong and the ‘denier’ was correct.

Hope you will allow yourself to explore the other side Rainn.

Although Ms Brenneman would not agree it is to be hoped that Romney will make global warming a priority and roll back all the subsidies to green energy generation as well as rescind the CO2 designation as a pollutant by the EPA. CO2 is plant food. CO2 is green.

CO2 has been exhaled during the creation of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.

Blakemore should Bake More

Blakemore should bake more because he is not done yet! He has only dealt with a side of the global warming issue that paints it as a human caused global disaster in the making.

“Hot air has avoided Sweden with uncanny precision,” says the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI) in its summary of the summer of 2012. “It was the worst in twelve years (if you like sun and heat, that is).”

'The summer just finished has been a rather wet and cool affair in Scotland, following a similar trend to the UK as a whole. '

'On the first day of spring it was shivering cold in Sydney, with the city experiencing its coldest September morning in 17 years.'

So how come those little puffs of CO2 heat trapping gas that 'are quickly, the scientists tell us, dispersed around the entire globe.' manage to not do their job in some countries? Kinda takes the 'global' outta global warming don't it?

CO2 is sure a magical gas! Did CO2 molecules hold a convention in the US mid-west this summer? Is that why a drought ensued? The Swedish and Australian CO2 had to attend the convention in the US mid-west. That's why it was so cold in those countries this summer. Yes, I know. It was winter in Australia during the US summer. And it was a cold one. Hot here, cold there. Heat distribution not so rare. Nothing unusual folks.

Climate scientists are beginning to sound like Harold Camping. Their predictions have an o-fer record just like his.

CO2 has been exhaled during the creation of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.

Doctor Nurse

“Global warming denialists, those who oppose genetically modified crops and vaccinations, or the teaching of evolution: their trick is treat scientific argument as if it’s a political argument, and cherry-pick data.”

Sir Paul Nurse is the current head of the Royal Society in Britain and is the author of the above comments. Funny, skeptics of human induced CO2 climate change see the alarmists as the ones who “treat scientific argument as if it’s a political argument, and cherry-pick data.”

This writer takes no issue with genetically modified crops, vaccinations (I’m up to date) or the teaching of evolution. All are firmly rooted in the scientific tradition.

Climate science is another matter. What is a layperson to think when climate scientists make predictions about how the climate is to behave under the influence of increased CO2 in the atmosphere and those predictions are falsified by reality. In my science education reality was treated as the final arbiter in any dispute. Reality trumps theory no matter who or how many ascribe to it. Climate science says that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will generate more severe weather in the world. And yet the US has not been hit by a major (cat3-5) hurricane in 5 years, the longest period of absence in the historical record. Florida has not been hit by any hurricane for the same length of time. This is to be cheered not lamented and is in contradiction to the theory of CO2 induced severe weather. The trend in severe weather for tornadoes, wildfires, floods and droughts follows a similar pattern.

What is a layperson to conclude when the theory predicts increasing temperatures in a CO2 infested atmosphere are not observed? My science education would lead me to conclude that the theory must be modified or abandoned because it is not capturing what the climate is doing.

What is a layperson to conclude when predictions of accelerating sea level rise in a world whose atmosphere is accumulating CO2 are not met.

It is facts like these that generate legitimate doubt in the mind of a layperson as they should generate in the more educated cortices of the Phds among us.

Sir Paul, what is the mechanism by which CO2 caused the drought in the US this summer or the warm winter in the eastern US in Jan-Mar 2012 while other areas of the planet were experiencing record cold? Did the CO2 molecules all move to the US to trap the heat there thus leaving none elsewhere to keep people warm? Do we have measurements to back up the movement of CO2? And how did that actually take place? What moved the molecules? Or is a better explanation provided by the movement of jet streams and sea surface temperatures expressed in the PDO, ENSO and the AMO? Perhaps the AO and NAO had a role to play this year?

How would a meteorologist explain the weather patterns of the year?

It makes one wonder who has their head buried in the sand on this issue. The facts speak volumes and yet it is the alarmists who ignore them or deny them and seek to influence people by repetition and cherry picking data while leaving out contrary information.

Skeptics seek to put all relevant information on the table for all to see so that the truth can be distilled and go where the data lead.

Dr Nurse speaks for a prestigious and venerable organization whose policy is  “never to give their opinion as a Body upon any subject either of Nature or Art that comes before them”.

Since Dr Nurse has chosen to ignore the policy of his own organization can we assume that he has sought leave to do so? Was the membership polled by an independent pollster on the topic of CAGW? Was the membership given the opportunity to respond to the idea that human induced CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere is the cause of the late 20th century warming? Were they also polled about the lack of warming for the last 15 years? Does Dr Nurse speak on behalf of the Royal Society or only for a himself and a select few? What is the truth?

What is a layperson to think when it is possible to find peer reviewed studies that dispute man’s role in global warming and climate change paid for with taxpayer dollars? My conclusion would be to recognize that there is no consensus despite statements to the contrary and to conclude that someone has an agenda they wny pushed.

What is a layperson to think when political statements from organizations with a political agenda that champion a disputed viewpoint.

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." ~Club of Rome

One invented for the purpose. That is not science; that is advocacy and the truth be damned.

A layperson can be excused his cynicism in the face of such unabashed political intent.

Doctor Nurse continues: “We can’t sit by without exposing bunkum.”

Amen, Doctor Nurse. And that is what the skeptic has proceeded to do. You are backing the wrong horse ,sir.

While Doctor Nurse attempts the guilt by association tactic to try and discredit skeptical distrust of the CAGW meme his ruse misses the mark.

He wonders how it is that a nation that produces the wonders of Silicon Valley and great research centers in New York, Boston, Baltimore and Rochester, Minn., to name just a few, has large stretches where the theory of evolution is not taught.

People can accept evolution and doubt CAGW. I do. Let us not introduce red herrings. Because one theory has oodles of support does not mean that the other one does. Both require independent means of support.

That support is missing in the case of CAGW.

The stakes are too high to play political games, he says. Indeed. The survival of our way of life is at stake. Refer to the above quote from the Club of Rome.

Mencken nails it:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

CAGW is a myth and Bertrand Russell's observation is vindicated again.

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”

Plant food will destroy us. Yeah, right!

The Cruel Fuel

Biofuels: burning food to power our vehicles. Whose bright idea was that? 

When it comes to climate change the foresight of our leaders is about as good as the models they use to predict the future of the climate in 2100. In their infinite wisdom they agreed to mandate that 10% of our gasoline be made of ethanol. Ethanol is made from crops such as corn, sugar cane and potato. We are burning food to power our motor vehicles. In a world with over 7 billion people it is estimated that about 1.4 billion live in poverty. Will these people be thrilled to learn that while they find it hard to get enough food to eat developed nations are growing food not to sustain their bodies but to sustain their transportation? Biofuels deflect crop production from food to fuel. This means that food prices will rise as the supply of food is decreased. Pop goes the corn price. This affects poor people disproportionately to their income. Gas prices will also be adversely affected.

This inane policy came about because the world incorrectly came to believe that the burning of fossil fuels was causing the globe to warm up because of extra CO2 put in the atmosphere. CO2 is believed to be a heat trapping gas that causes the world to warm irrevocably and that if we do not stop we will become human fricassee. Global warming  was expected to lead to higher temperatures and more severe droughts. Neither is the case but that does not mean that droughts will vanish as summer 2012 in North America shows. They are a recurring phenomenon.  And when they do occur crops will be affected and food prices will rise. So poor people are whacked again by more expensive food: first by the diversion of crops for biofuel and then by drought.

:

So, while biofuel policy was enacted to save the world from global warming it has instead harmed the poor by diverting crop production from food to transportation. Rising temperatures have not materialized and while droughts still occur in the world the trend is not toward more severe events. Biofuels have turned out to be a misanthropic policy. Biofuels are a subsidized industry which forces different branches of the government to spend unnecessarily for their transportation. Higher taxes and higher debt for our descendants.

The production processes used in biofuel generation also produce harmful emissions that counteract their questionable benefits.

The war on CO2, a trace gas essential for life on earth, is a misinformed attack on the fossil fuel industry by those who are more interested in world government than in the health of their fellow humans.

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." ~ Club of Rome

In short, we should be putting more CO2 into the atmosphere for our friends, the flora. More trees, more flowers, more food.  All good. There already is a common enemy of humans - several of them that do not have to be invented - disease and starvation come to mind. Can we not rally around those problems? Good food makes us healthier and better able to fight off disease. More CO2 in our atmosphere would go a long way toward assisting our goal to help our fellow humans. Global governance not required. Freedom will better serve the purpose. Free countries produce a food surplus. We do not lack for food in our grocery stores. Those that starve have governments where rule of law is weak or exist where war disrupts or destroys the normal activities of everyday life. Food production can be sufficient to avoid starvation but people need strong democratic governments to provide the structure so people can prosper. The ethanol mandate should be abandoned.