Climategate - Page 62

Originally Posted by Wormhole

Alzheimer's is a bitch.

Originally Posted by iPoster

What subject are you an Emeritus Professor of again?

I see the accusations in Lewis' resignation letter are being ignored as expected. He must not be a peer-reviewed source?

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Peer-Reviewed Research Indicates Only 35% of Global Warming Due To CO2

Originally Posted by Wormhole

35% is due the CO2. I thought you think it is 0% ...???

[f]ortunately for the world, the IPCC and Climategate science alarmists have relied exclusively on climate models based on the concept that human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming. The newest peer-reviewed study finds that hypothesis to be wrong. At most, CO2 greenhouse gases might be 35% of global warming, per this latest research.

"It is at present impossible to accurately determine climate sensitivity (defined as the equilibrium warming in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations) from past records, partly because carbon dioxide and short-lived species have increased together over the industrial era. Warming over the past 100 years is consistent with high climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide combined with a large cooling effect from short-lived aerosol pollutants, but it could equally be attributed to a low climate sensitivity coupled with a small effect from aerosols. These two possibilities lead to very different projections for future climate change.".....Unfortunately, climate models neither accurately deal with local effects of these pollutants nor are the complex interactions among these substances understood. That not withstanding, the report is clearCO2 does not account for even a majority of the warming seen over the past century. If other species accounted for 65% of historical warming that leaves only 35% for carbon dioxide."

Originally Posted by Wormhole

I always go and ask a nuclear safety expert if my upper molar hurts. Who else would know?

Originally Posted by iPoster

So nuclear safety experts know less than geologists, pediatricians, paleontologists, veterinarians and biologists about climate science?

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Don't forget Al Gore.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has adopted new guidelines on dealing with scientific uncertainty following criticism of its 2007 report.

But the panel's meeting in South Korea closed with many other reforms proposed in a recent review being passed to committees for further consideration.

Chairman Rajendra Pachauri confirmed his intention to stay in post until the next assessment is published in 2014.

Dr Pachauri said the talks marked a milestone in the panel's history.



The new guidance on uncertainties is aimed at preventing too much confidence being ascribed to conclusions where evidence is scarce.

In its recent review, the InterAcademy Council (IAC) - an umbrella group for the world's science academies - highlighted a case in the 2007 assessment where studies projecting rapidly declining in crop yields in Africa were given more weight than they merited, in the absence of supporting evidence.

Enhanced guidance on the use of "grey literature" - material not published in peer-reviewed scientific journals - has also been drawn up, and will be finalised by chairs of the IPCC's working groups in the coming months.

The IAC also recommended that the IPCC reform its management, by taking on a full-time executive director to complement the part-time role of the chair, and by establishing an executive committee that could make decisions in periods between full meetings.

However, these proposals have been given to a committee for further discussions, with the aim of reaching agreement at the next full meeting in May 2011.

The IPCC is charged by the UN system with producing regular systematic evaluations of global climate change and its implications. The next assessment will be the fifth since the panel's inception.

A new project aims to use old Royal Navy logbooks to help build a more accurate picture of how our climate has changed over the last century.

The project, called OldWeather.org, will also help fill in gaps in our knowledge of an important stage in British history.



Mobile weather stations

Dr Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the UK Met Office, said: "Historical weather data is vital because it allows us to test our models of the Earth's climate: if we can correctly account for what the weather was doing in the past, then we can have more confidence in our predictions of the future.


Most of the data about past climate comes from land-based weather monitoring stations which have been systematically recording data for over 150 years.

Those behind the OldWeather.org project say that the weather information from the WWI ships - which spans the period 1905-1929 - effectively extends this network to 280 mobile, seaborne weather stations.

Web volunteers are rewarded by rising through the ranks from cadet to captain of a particular ship, according to the number of pages they transcribe.

The project followsin the footsteps of previous "citizen science" projects such as Stardust@Home, Einstein@Home, Galaxy Zoo and Moon Zoo. It will also contribute to historical knowledge about WWI.

OldWeather.org features logbooks from historically important ships including HMS Caroline, which survived the Battle of Jutland and is still in existence in Belfast.

Originally Posted by Wormhole

Yes.

German chemist, Dr Klaus Kaiser has published evidence that proves the Royal Society (RS), London, has been caught out making schoolboy errors in mathematical calculations over the duration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere. Backed up by a review by a leading Swedish mathematics professor the revelation is a serious embarrassment to the credibility of the once revered British science institute and a major setback for its claims about climate change.

A gaffe in their own basic calculations led the RS to falsely find that CO2 would stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years rather than a dozen or so as per peer-reviewed studies show. Global warming skeptics have been quick to condemn the error and demand an apology and immediate correction.

The Royal Society advises the British government on matters concerning climate change. Due to the scale of the error any forthcoming review will necessarily result in a substantial downward revision of the threat posed by CO2 in the official government numbers.

Leading Canadian Climate scientist, Professor Tim Ball emailed this author to add his own comments and suggests the issue of residency time was part of the strategy to increase the focus on CO2. He says, "It is part of a bundle of claims about CO2 that are now shown false and Dr Kaiser's is another major correction. I believe they were all produced with malice and forethought driven by the political need to demonize CO2." Professor Ball further believes such a position is supported by the evidence of how the RS dealt with other issues including advocacy of dubious computer programs.

Climate writer and former US Navy meteorologist, Dr. Martin Hertzberg added, "The failure of the Royal Society and the APS to do their homework on this question and to accept propaganda as though it was valid science, is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale."

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Polar Ice Melt: Over 90% of Melt Due To Soot, Not CO2, According To Peer-Reviewed Study

New research from NASA and Columbia University climate scientists shows that more than 25 percent of the increase in average global temperature between 1880 and 2002 may be due to soot contamination of snow and ice worldwide. Pure snow and ice can be blindingly bright, reflecting large amounts of incoming radiation back into space, whereas snow and ice that is contaminated with black carbon absorbs incoming solar radiation. The scientists estimate that a soot content of only a few parts per billion (ppb) can reduce snows ability to reflect incoming radiation by 1 percent. In North American, soot has reduced snows reflectivity by 3 percent.

This image shows the results of computer models of the impact of soot on global temperatures between 1880 and 2002. Soot has caused the greatest increase in temperature in the high northern latitudes, as shown by the large swaths of red, orange, and gold across the top of this image.

In addition to its contribution to global warming, soot also speeds up melting of snow and ice, meaning it is probably partly responsible for the rapid decline in the worlds glaciers. Soot in the atmosphere causes regional haze that depresses plant (including crop) productivity, and it is a significant health hazard. For more on this story, read the GSFC press release.

WASHINGTON: A new study has found that the quickest, best way to slow the rapid melting of Arctic sea ice is to reduce soot emissions from the burning of fossil fuel, wood and dung.

According to Stanford researcher Mark Z Jacobson analysis, soot is second only to carbon dioxide in contributing to global warming. But, he said, climate models to date have mischaracterized the effects of soot in the atmosphere.

Because of that, soot's contribution to global warming has been ignored in national and international global warming policy legislation, he said.


To reach his conclusions, Jacobson used an intricate computer model of global climate, air pollution and weather that he developed over the last 20 years that included atmospheric processes not incorporated in previous models.

He examined the effects of soot - black and brown particles that absorb solar radiation - from two types of sources.

He analyzed the impacts of soot from fossil fuels - diesel, coal, gasoline, jet fuel - and from solid biofuels, such as wood, manure, dung, and other solid biomass used for home heating and cooking in many locations. He also focused in detail on the effects of soot on heating clouds, snow and ice.

What he found was that the combination of both types of soot is the second-leading cause of global warming after carbon dioxide.

He also found that soot emissions kill more than 1.5 million people prematurely worldwide each year, and afflicts millions more with respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease and asthma, mostly in the developing world where biofuels are used for home heating and cooking.

Coming into this year, conventional wisdom had it that if Democrats failed to get an energy and climate bill passed by this summer, a new attempt would have to wait until at least 2011.

Think longer-term than that. Maybe a lot longer.

In his most recent reading of the political tea leaves, published Oct. 8, noted analyst Charles Cook of the Cook Political Report sees Republicans in the House picking up at least 40 seats with 39 needed to take the majority.

A headline on the Associated Press's latest analysis? "As Democrats' message lags, GOP awaits huge wins."

And not just at the national level. In a hard Senate fight in West Virginia, Democratic Governor Joe Manchin is running as fast as possible from any association with the concept of a cap-and-trade bill to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. In a campaign ad, Manchin literally fires a shot at the bill. Other Democrats are downplaying (or remaining silent on) climate change as a campaign issue.

Meanwhile, GOP candidates incumbents and challengers are lauding the benefits of carbon dioxide for creatures great and small, attributing global warming to sunspots (long discredited), and in general touting the notion of human-triggered global warming as a hoax.

Ironically, they seem to be out of step with much of the American public. In a new survey released by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 63 percent of Americans agree that global warming is happening. A plurality (50 percent) agree that it's triggered by human activity, compared with 35 percent who say it's natural, and 7 percent who say it isn't happening at all.

The survey, conducted from late June to late July included 2,030 adults in the US.

From the standpoint of solutions, large majorities agree that switching to green energy sources, preventing deforestation and other approaches would reduce global warming. But the study points out a majority of respondents (53 percent) either don't believe that large tax increases on fossil fuels would help, or they say they don't know.

And therein lies a great deal of the rub, according to the Council on Foreign Relations' Michael Levi. In a blog post earlier this year, he noted in effect that once again, "it's the economy, stupid."

Especially in lean economic times, a cap-and-trade bill (Republicans have dubbed it the Pelosi energy tax) designed to shift the economy to greener energy technologies injects too much uncertainty into the calculations of people who have jobs.

The switch by definition implies that some existing jobs will vanish. The thought of losing those jobs would be bad enough in economically good years. But when the unemployment rate hovers between 9 and 10 percent, and economic growth is expected to be anemic for some time? A double no-thanks on all your proposals.

And those who are unemployed and might benefit from the change are a smaller, less influential slice of the electorate.

If that's the case, the US currently may be experiencing in its own way an internal version of the arguments that have played out on the international stage between rich and poor countries on battling global warming.

When an economy is in the tank, either because of a near-depression or because a country is underdeveloped, its a lot tougher to sell what are perceived to be expensive environmental solutions whose benefits may not be seen for decades to individuals who are worried about their job today.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Russian Arctic Experts: The Arctic Has Entered Cooling Cycle & Climate Models Are Worthless

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Wikipedia Bans Radical Global Warming Propagandist From Editing All Pages

Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information, not propaganda. But William M. Connolley, who blogs under the name Stoat, has repeatedly abused his administrator position at Wikipedia to bias climate change-related articles to reflect his global warming activism.

But no more. After extensive run-ins with Connolley, Wikipedia has banned him from participating in climate change articles.

Since CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) supposedly has so much evidence on its side, its remarkable how vehemently Connolley fought against letting Wikipedia readers read neutral articles that include the views of skeptics. His deceptive conduct was deeply unethical.

Watts Up With that points that that in addition to Connolley, other administrators on both sides of the global warming issue have been sanctioned. At least one CAGW-skeptical administrator says he was sanctioned for kicking up a fuss about the pro-CAGW bias.

At least the net result is a gain for fair editing, since Connolley was by far the most active in shamelessly inserting his bias into Wikipedias global warming articles.

Connolleys pro CAGW campaign extended over years. I hope that Wikipedia speeds up its cumbersome bureaucratic process so that future offenders can be dealt with more swiftly.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Earth's climate changes. This is a fact. How much of an effect human activity has on the climate - and whether it is a good or bad thing - is where the true controversy lies.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Peer-Reviewed Research Indicates Only 35% of Global Warming Due To CO2

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Polar Ice Melt: Over 90% of Melt Due To Soot, Not CO2, According To Peer-Reviewed Study

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Is climate change bad?

Originally Posted by jazzguru

CO2 is plant food. More CO2 = happy vegetation.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising at an alarming rate, and new research indicates that soybean plant defenses go down as CO2 goes up. Elevated CO2 impairs a key component of the plants defenses against leaf-eating insects, according to the report.

What we discovered is that leaves grown under high CO2 lose their ability to produce jasmonic acid, and that whole defense pathway is shut down, Delucia said. The leaves are no longer adequately defended.

The higher carbohydrate content of the leaves and the lack of chemical defenses allowed the adult insects to feast and live longer and produce more offspring.

This study demonstrates that global environmental change is multifaceted, Berenbaum said. The impact of elevated carbon dioxide on crippling the capacity of the plant to respond to insect damage is exacerbated by the presence of invasive insect pests in soybean fields. The Japanese beetle, as the name suggests, is a relatively recent arrival in Illinois soybean fields. It is causing considerable damage now but this study suggests that its ability to inflict damage will only increase over time.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Is climate change bad?

The World Health Organisation (WHO) says global warming could lead to a major increase in insect-borne diseases in Britain and Europe.
It has called for urgent government action to prepare for the spread of diseases like malaria and encephalitis.

The average temperature in Europe has increased by 0.8C during the past century and the average global temperature could rise by another 3.5C by the year 2100, as heat is trapped in the atmosphere by a build-up of gases such as carbon dioxide.

This would be accompanied by changes in rainfall patterns, greater precipitation and humidity in the atmosphere, and many new areas of floodwater.

This in turn could lead to an increase in disease-carrying pests such as ticks, mosquitoes and rats, which live in warmer climates and whose breeding-grounds are often in damp areas.

Three countries in the European region covered by the WHO - Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Turkey - are already danger zones for mosquito-borne malaria.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Key word: could.

They have no idea what will happen.

As the world heats up, ecosystems are visibly struggling to cope with the rapid ecological changes. Global warming has already triggered weather changes from flooding and storms to heatwaves and drought that are taking a heavy toll on people's health around the world.

In high-level meetings, developed and developing country governments are busy battling over emission targets. Meanwhile, the world's poor, who bear the biggest disease burdens, can expect soaring rates of ill health.

This increase will come partly from shifting population dynamics, as people flee flooded coasts or searing deserts for more habitable areas. A rise in diseases carried by insects, such as mosquitoes or ticks, could be a key factor. Climate influences these 'vectors' in many ways from controlling the length of their life cycle to influencing breeding conditions.

Scientists broadly agree that climate change will affect insect-borne diseases, but the exact consequences remain uncertain. Whether warmer, wetter conditions make it easier for vectors such as mosquitoes to multiply and spread disease will depend on a much broader range of ecological and societal factors than just rainfall or temperature.

Initial concerns about climate change in the early 1990sfocused on environmental impacts and all but ignored links with health. But this imbalance is slowly changing as research emerges on the likely effects climate change will have on people's health and the spread of disease.

This year, for example, The Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) published a report estimating that 315,000 people die due to climate change every year, and they predict this will rise to half a million by the year 2030. [3] While such estimates of direct deaths remain low relative to the size of the global population, about 310 million people are expected to have suffered ill health because of climate change by 2030.

Nine out of ten of these people will be in developing countries and the number of healthy years of life lost to environmental change, including climate change, is set to be 500 times higher in Africa than Europe

Developing countries already bear the brunt of the global disease burden. Their populations are more likely to be undernourished, lack access to clean water and contract infectious diseases such as malaria. They are also dealing with a growing epidemic of chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer.

Climate could worsen the problems in many ways. Changing rainfall patterns and sea level rises mean some areas will become drought-prone while others are flooded. Both situations have dire consequences for access to clean water. This, in turn, means a likely spread of waterborne diseases such as cholera and diarrhoea, which alone kills nearly two million children a year.

One area of particular concern is how climate change will affect the spread of insect-borne diseases. These include dengue fever, malaria, Lyme disease, West Nile virus, Rift Valley fever, chikungunya and yellow fever. They are spread through the bite of 'vectors' such as mosquitoes, ticks and flies.

Researchers currently focus much of their attention on dengue fever and malaria, partly because the diseases are so prevalent but also because outbreaks seem linked to climate. Increased rainfall in normally dry areas, for example, can create stagnant pools of water where mosquitoes breed.

But the links between climate and insect-borne disease are far from simple (see Table 1 for potential interactions). The same rainfall increase in wet regions could reduce malaria by washing immature mosquitoes away. Changes in temperature can also have opposing effects, depending on where they occur.

Generally speaking, the malaria mosquito digests blood quicker and feeds more often in warmer weather, thus speeding up transmission. The parasite meanwhile completes its life cycle more quickly, increasing replication. In theory then, global warming might allow these vectors to spread into areas they weren't previously able to colonise.

By 2080, up to 320 million more people could be affected by malaria because of these new transmission zones. [6] Worryingly, the disease would then also be spreading to people whose immune systems may never have been exposed to malaria, and who may be more vulnerable as a result.

The spread of other vector-borne diseases could also increase. The cholera bacteria Vibrio cholerae can live on some species of plankton. Warmer sea temperatures mean more plankton blooms, which could mean the cholera bacteria flourishes, spreading to populations on the warm coasts of countries such as Bangladesh.

Schistosomiasis, a parasitic disease transmitted by aquatic snails, also seems to be affected by climate. In China, the latitudinal threshold beyond which temperatures were too cold for the snail to live has moved northwards, putting nearly 21 million more people at risk of the disease

Future warming could have "profound implications" for the stability of freshwater ecosystems, a study warns.

Researchers said warmer water affected the distribution and size of plankton - tiny organisms that form the basis of food chains in aquatic systems.