ANTHROPOGENIC Climate Change Update...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth
Interesting stuff. The global warming climate change folks and the outright deniers can have fun chewing on this one too.
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth
Interesting stuff. The global warming climate change folks and the outright deniers can have fun chewing on this one too.
Science XPress - The ongoing global glacier retreat is affecting human societies by causing sea-level rise, changing seasonal water availability, and increasing geohazards. Melting glaciers are an icon of anthropogenic climate change. However, glacier response times are typically decades or longer, which implies that the present-day glacier retreat is a mixed response to past and current natural climate variability and current anthropogenic forcing. Here, we show that only 25 ± 35% of the global glacier mass loss during the period from 1851 to 2010 is attributable to anthropogenic causes. Nevertheless, the anthropogenic signal is detectable with high confidence in glacier mass balance observations during 1991 to 2010, and the anthropogenic fraction of global glacier mass loss during that period has increased to 69 ± 24%.
The University of Illinois's Arctic Science Research Center has been tracking global sea ice for decades now and their finding is that there has literally been no change for over 30 years now (a slight decrease in the northern hemisphere and a slight increase in the southern hemisphere). Yet another "inconvenient truth", let's just call it.
ReplyDeleteBunk!
DeleteAnybody who's studied even a small amount of chemistry (even those nut-jobs who were trying to push global COOLING in the '70s) knows that the relationship between CO2 and warming is a logarithmic one (the first 20 ppm easily being the most potent) and that the effects of CO2 after 400 ppm are modest at best. The fact that these lunatics from the U.N. were somehow able to convince the public that this trace gas (of which humans contribute but a trace), which is actually one of the key building-blocks of life, is somehow going to cause Armageddon is scary, truly scary.
DeleteAnd anybody who wants to see an actual debate on the subject should go to Youtube and watch the PBS Intelligence Squared debate between Richard Lindzen and Michael Crichton (on the skeptics side) and Gavin Schmidt and that lady from the Union of Concerned Scientists (on the alarmists side).......Unless of course you're unconvincible and in that case you should probably skip it.
DeleteSee-Ohh-Two alone is not the sole driver of climate change. Methane is a greenhouse gas twenty times more potent than CO2, and there are trillions of cubic feet of methane trapped in permafrost beneath Siberia. Recent sinkhole activity in the region points to a cascading, runaway condition - with terrible implications for the future.
DeleteNow “unconvincible” [sic] is a cute little word – cute in terms of what users of the word are trying to accomplish: Pumping themselves up as subject matter experts while putting down anyone who disagrees. Please note a subtle irony: Those who often wield this word fall into the category of “unconvincible” [sic].
BTW, the word is “inconvincible.”
Assuming you are capable of reading charts and graphs and identifying patterns of data, you might profit from this post: Climate Change Deniers and Boiled Frogs.
I agree that CO2 is not the sole driver of climate change and that, yes, methane, too, plays a factor (that's one of the reasons why I'm a vegetarian) but THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ALARMISTS ARE ASSERTING HERE!!!!!!! Hello!!!!!!!!! As for the true main factors of climate change (as opposed to a trace gas which has a logarithmic relationship with warming - you didn't know that, did you?) but solar activity, volcanic activity (and inactivity), the PDO (google it), cosmic rays, planetary perturbations, lunar and galactic cycles, bacteria, plate tectonics, peat fires, etc........And you can stuff your little cut and paste idiocy and mindnumbingly irritating sarcasm. I have studied this issue in a way that you never have or ever could and I know the arguments on both sides (and I can tell you for a fact that Al Gore's dopey little movie had close to 3 dozen errors in it).......Oh, and as for things being trapped in ice, you know what else is? Try black carbon particles that come from the third world burning of dung, garbage, bamboo, palm oil, etc., black particles that wouldn't be there if the environmental nut jobs weren't so dogmatic and allowed these poor folks to have relatively clean burning butane and propane heaters.......I could give you more to think about but I wouldn't want to overwhelm you.
DeleteAnd here are the graphs on global sea ice; one from the University of Illinois's Arctic Science Research Center and the other from the University of Oslo - http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2013/03/on-global-sea-ice-trends-1979-to-present.html - Bunk you!
Delete"I have studied this issue in a way that you never have or ever could ..."
DeleteSpoken by a person who knows nothing about me and shoots from his hip. For 2 decades, I was a documentary filmmaker in New York who researched, wrote, produced and directed numerous documentary films on the subjects of energy and the environment. My first documentary, produced after the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, was called: A Consumers' Guide to the Energy Crisis," which appeared on Public Television and won several awards.
Through the years, my client list has included: Consolidated Edison, The Rural Electrification Administration, the Department of Energy, and consulting engineering firms such as Burns and Roe.
I have been writing on these subjects for over 40 years. What is your claim to fame other than bellicose belligerence masking a willful ignorance?
I took the liberty to reference a government document called Operations management manual for fossil fuel steam electric generating plants (REA-163-3), published in 1981.
DeleteHow do I know of this document? Because I worked on this project. The media package that launched this program was MY WORK PRODUCT. My first documentary film, A Consumers’ Guide to the Energy Crisis, was funded by the New York Daily News and distributed by Prentice-Hall Media. Go fish it!
To infer that I know nothing about energy production (fossil fuel, hydroelectric, nuclear, photovoltaic, wind generation), or the economics of energy production, or the environmental impacts thereof, and that I am utterly incapable of understanding the fundamentals, is SHEER FOLLY. Yet, you said:
"I have studied this issue in a way that you never have or ever could ..."
It’s the kind of statement made by an arrogant buffoon who puffs up himself as some kind of subject matter expert -- but ends up stepping into deep doo-doo.
You have turned yourself into self-parody and the engineer of your own canned laughter.
This post is about global glacier retreat not sea ice.
ReplyDeleteGlaciers have been advancing and retreating for billions of years, Jerry, and what we're observing now is the end result of a process that started centuries ago. The fact of the matter is that atmospheric temperatures haven't gone up in 17 years (this, despite a 28% increase in CO2), oceanic temperatures haven't gone up since 2003 (the advent of the ARGO system), extreme weather events haven't gone up for decades, no hot-spot has shown up in the satellite images, escaping radiation (from the atmosphere into space) has actually increased, and global sea ice has stayed virtually stagnant for some 30 years. Yes, human activity has probably played a modest role in the .7 degree Celsius rise in temperature over the past 150 years (I personally would submit that solar activity and the PDO are far more significant) but it is nothing to be alarmed about and there is absolutely no reason to wreck the Western economy over it.
DeleteAnd I've crunched the numbers, Jerry (their damn numbers). It is over 20 times more expensive to prevent global warming than it ever will be to prevent it, assuming that the latter strategy is even possible.
DeleteI am not sure what you are trying to say.
DeleteWill-the-Shill: “ It is over 20 times more expensive to prevent global warming than it ever will be to prevent it …”
DeleteHere’s another fact for you: People who wield the word “unconvincible” [sic] are fifty (50) times more likely to sleepwalk in the night, bump into walls, and kick the family dog.
See, anyone can make up facts. Like the tobacco industry, for instance, in trying to convince the American public that cigarettes were “Cool,” or the Ethyl Lead industry that denied links between leaded gasoline and childhood disabilities, or the Koch brothers who want us to believe that links between formaldehyde and incidence rates of leukemia in children are bogus. There are sociopaths of American industry hell bent on protecting their hoards of filthy lucre … with lies, lies and more lies … while raking in billions as they compromise public health.
OMG, Jeebus and Mary! Perish this thought: The American petroleum industry are good guys who would never dream of spinning facts to protect their filthy franchise. And, of course, there is always a commenter who spins a specious fact but provides no attribution, footnote, or reference so that readers can check the veracity of the claim.
BTW, the word is “inconvincible.”
Just for the record here, Les, a) he called me a name (Will the Shill - never minding that fact that I am solidly opposed to ALL energy subsidies) and b) he called me a liar. Both, unprovoked.......As for my analysis, here it is (I suggest that the reader read slowly) - The Australian carbon tax, the aim of which is to reduce the country's emissions by 5%, is slated to cost the taxpayers of that country $160 billion. Being that Australia only produces 1.2% of the world's total CO2 emissions, the tax would only cut global CO2 emissions by .06%, and so instead of the atmospheric CO2 level being 410 ppm by the end of the decade it will only be 409.988 ppm, and instead of the temperature being X it'll be X - .00005 of a degree C........................................................................................Taking the numbers further. The predicted global warming (according to the IPCC) over the coming decade is .17 degree C. For the world to somehow be able to stop that (extrapolating to include all countries and to actually achieve this goal), the total cost would be approximately $540 trillion, or 80% of global GDP. Does anybody out there really think that this constitutes a good investment?.....................................................................And, yes, I am of course asking you to compare that to the cost of doing nothing now and adapting to global warming if necessary. The Stern Report (a rabidly pro-AGW document) - according to this analysis, the cost of climate change would run anywhere from 1-3% of global GDP. So, even if we take the higher end of this projected cost, that would only be approximately $20 trillion, 96% less (or, if you prefer a ratio, 27:1), 96% LESS!!! I mean, are you starting to see the craziness here?
DeleteAnd what type of a person makes endless hay over a word? I find that really strange (and of course he's not going to watch that video of Richard Lindzen wiping the floor with Gavin Schmidt in that that would necessitate accommodation as opposed to assimilation).............That and I really think that he needs to open up a book and learn a little bit more about energy. You see, that way he would learn that wind turbines have a power density of only 1.2 watts per square meter (refer to Vaclav Smil and Robert Bryce - as opposed to a nuclear power plant or a highly functioning natural gas well which both have a power density of over 50 watts per square meter), are only efficient 10-35% of the time, constantly need a fossil fuel backup, and easily have the highest resource intensity of any energy source (thousands of tons of concrete, steel, etc.)..............And of course that entire Koch Brothers thing was a total red herring/ strawman.
Delete