Archives par mot-clé : Fun?/Discussion

Does global climate change require a global solution?

by Andy May, May 19, 2018 in WUWT


Al Gore wrote in the Huffington Post (August 28, 2014) that the need for “bold action” to curtail “old dirty sources of energy … is obvious and urgent.” The proper scientific response to an assertion like that is why? How can I test this idea? Science is not a belief, it is a method of testing ideas. We use an idea to make predictions and then we gather data to see if the predictions are correct. If the predictions are accurate, the idea survives. If any of the predictions fail, the idea is disproven, and it must be modified or simply rejected.

Correcting Flaws in Global Warming Projections Posted on

by Ron Clutz, May 16, 2018 in ScienceMatters


Thanks to GWPF for publishing posthumously Bill Gray’s understanding of global warming/climate change.  The paper was compiled at his request, completed and now available as Flaws in applying greenhouse warming to Climate Variability This post provides some excerpts in italics with my bolds and some headers.  Readers will learn much from the entire document (title above is link to pdf).

The Fundamental Correction

The critical argument that is made by many in the global climate modeling (GCM) community is that an increase in CO2 warming leads to an increase in atmospheric water vapor, resulting in more warming from the absorption of outgoing infrared radiation (IR) by the water vapor (…)

Figure 14: Global surface temperature change since 1880. The dotted blue and dotted red lines illustrate how much error one would have made by extrapolating a multi-decadal cooling or warming trend beyond a typical 25-35 year period. Note the recent 1975-2000 warming trend has not continued, and the global temperature remained relatively constant until 2014.

What global warming? How about global cooling

by M. Khandekar, April 27, 2018 in TroyMedia


It’s been a long winter.

I should know. I’m a former climate research scientist at Environment Canada. And I was an expert reviewer for the United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its 2007 Climate Change Report.

The wintry weather held its grip over most of Canada well into April, from Vancouver to St. John’s, as snow, freezing rain, ice pellets and ferocious winds hammered everyone. A few noteworthy wintry tales:

  • Calgary is set for record snowfall.

  • Edmonton set a record for continuous days of below-freezing temperatures this winter.

  • Most of the Canadian Prairies were still in winter-like weather mode in mid-April.

  • Toronto has recorded one of the highest numbers of Heating Degree Days at 3,485 and counting.

  • Atlantic Canada braced for more wintry weather with snow accumulation of 10 to 25 cm in mid-month.

This year’s winter could be the longest, snowiest and coldest in 40 years.

(…)

The Sea Is Rising, but Not Because of Climate Change

by Fred Singer, May 15, 2018 in TheWallStreetJournal


It is generally thought that sea-level rise accelerates mainly by thermal expansion of sea water, the so-called steric component. But by studying a very short time interval, it is possible to sidestep most of the complications, like “isostatic adjustment” of the shoreline (as continents rise after the overlying ice has melted) and “subsidence” of the shoreline (as ground water and minerals are extracted).

I chose to assess the sea-level trend from 1915-45, when a genuine, independently confirmed warming of approximately 0.5 degree Celsius occurred. I note particularly that sea-level rise is not affected by the warming; it continues at the same rate, 1.8 millimeters a year, according to a 1990 review by Andrew S. Trupin and John Wahr. I therefore conclude—contrary to the general wisdom—that the temperature of sea water has no direct effect on sea-level rise. That means neither does the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide.

 (…)

After 20 Years, The ‘Hockey Stick’ Graph Behind Waves Of Climate Alarmism Is Still In Dispute

by M. Bastach, April 30, 2018 in ClimateChangeDispatch


Roughly 20 years ago, climate scientist Michael Mann published his famous “hockey stick” graph that he says “galvanized climate action” by showing unprecedented global warming.

Mann used the 20-year anniversary of the graph to opine on the “industry-funded” attacks “to discredit the iconic symbol of the human impact on our climate,” which Mann claimed had withstood criticism.

“Yet, in the 20 years since the original hockey stick publication, independent studies, again and again, have overwhelmingly reaffirmed our findings, including the key conclusion: recent warming is unprecedented over at least the past millennium,” Mann wrote in Scientific American on April 20.

However, the two Canadian researchers who found serious flaws in the “hockey stick” study’s data and methodology disputed Mann’s characterization of the graph’s legacy.

(…)

How Oman’s Rocks Could Help Save the Planet

by Henri Fountain, April 26, 2018 in TheNewYorkTimes


IBRA, Oman — In the arid vastness of this corner of the Arabian Peninsula, out where goats and the occasional camel roam, rocks form the backdrop practically every way you look.

But the stark outcrops and craggy ridges are more than just scenery. Some of these rocks are hard at work, naturally reacting with carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and turning it into stone.

Veins of white carbonate minerals run through slabs of dark rock like fat marbling a steak. Carbonate surrounds pebbles and cobbles, turning ordinary gravel into natural mosaics.

Even pooled spring water that has bubbled up through the rocks reacts with CO2 to produce an ice-like crust of carbonate that, if broken, re-forms within days.

Scientists say that if this natural process, called carbon mineralization, could be harnessed, accelerated and applied inexpensively on a huge scale — admittedly some very big “ifs” — it could help fight climate change. Rocks could remove some of the billions of tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide that humans have pumped into the air since the beginning of the Industrial Age.

And by turning that CO2 into stone (…)

Maldives Government: Where’s Our Climate Cash?

by Eric Worrall, April 26, 2018 in WUWT


Maldives Environment Minister Thoriq Ibrahim has warned that unless the Maldives gets its climate cash before 2020, the 1.5C global warming limit will be breached.

Read more: http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/04/26/paris-agreement-starts-2020-will-late/

This call for climate cash echoes a similar demand from African nations a few weeks ago.

I’m not sure how the Maldives reconciles their climate concerns with all their fly-in tourism and their aggressive airport and resort building programmes, but no doubt some of that climate cash will help with the reconciliation if it ever arrives.

MSM: Eleven Minute Friendly Interview with Climate Skeptic Ian Plimer

by Eric Worrall, April 16, 2018 in WUWT


Sky News, one of Australia’s most popular news services, just gave climate skeptic and geologist Ian Plimer an honest opportunity to explain what is wrong with Australia’s climate obsessed energy policies.

Geologist Ian Plimer told The Outsiders that Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg had caught himself ‘between a rock and a hard place’ when it comes to the government’s energy policies. Mr Plimer said it wasn’t possible for the energy market to provide cheap and reliable energy, but also reduce emissions.

Four questions on climate change

by Garth Paltridge, April 18, 2018 in ClimateEtc.

An essay on the state of climate change science.

(1) Is the science of climate change ‘settled’?

The scientific uncertainties associated with climate prediction are the basis of most of the arguments about the significance of climate change(25), and as well are the basis of much of the polarized public opinion on the political aspects of the matter. Perhaps the most fundamental of the uncertainties can be illustrated by reference to a simple ‘thought experiment’ as follows.

(…)

(2), (3), (4)


 

23 années de pause des températures de la stratosphère selon le rapport 2017 du GWPF

by Uzbek, 2 avril 2018 in ClimatoRéalistes


La Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) a publié son rapport sur l’état du climat pour 2017. Etabli par Ole Humlum, Professeur émérite à l’Université d’Oslo, ce rapport est un examen complet du climat mondial.

En voici les 10 principales conclusions :

1. Il est probable que 2017 ait été une des années les plus chaudes depuis le début des mesures instrumentales en 1850, moins chaude cependant que 2016.

2. À la fin de l’année 2017, la température moyenne à la surface de la planète avait retrouvé les niveaux antérieurs à l’épisode El Niño. Cela montre que la hausse récente des températures mondiales a été causée principalement par ce phénomène océanographique dans le Pacifique. Cela suggère aussi que le  « hiatus » se poursuivra dans les années à venir.

(…)

Can Humans Melt the Antarctic Icecap?

by Julius Sanks, April 16, 2018 in WUWT


When discussing climate with people who do not have technical backgrounds, I have learned much of the climate discussion is a foreign language to them.

So, I take them through a few examples of how much energy is involved and how miniscule human activity is by comparison. Done properly, this lets a non-STEM person grasp the huge amounts of energy involved.

One of my favorites is Anthony’s essay that debunks the Hiroshima equivalent alarmism:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/23/getting-cooked-by-hiroshima-atomic-bomb-global-warming/

CHALLENGING THE SCIENCE BASIS OF THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT

by Antero Ollila, April 16 in WUWT


 

COP21 does not define the scientific basis of the agreement for the warming effects of the anthropogenic emissions, but it refers to a scenario. This scenario has not been defined in the COP21, but it can be found. The scientific resource of United Nations as well as of the COP21 is IPCC. The exact specification of IPCC is (Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014. Mitigation of Climate Change”): “Baseline scenarios, those without additional mitigation, result in global mean surface temperature increases in 2100 from 3.7 °C to 4.8 °C compared to pre-industrial levels (range based on median climate response; the range is 2.5 °C to 7.8 °C when including climate uncertainty)”. Even though IPCC refers to multiple scenarios in the text above, the surface temperature increase to the average value of 4.25 ⁰C means one scenario only.

Svensmark: “Global Warming Stopped And A Cooling Is Beginning” – “Enjoy Global Warming While It Lasts”

by H.. Svensmark, June1 , 2016 in Principia.Sci.International


The star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the usual signs of the Sun’s magnetic activity. Last week [4 September 2009] the scientific team behind the satellite SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported, “It is likely that the current year’s number of blank days will be the longest in about 100 years.” Everything indicates that the Sun is going into some kind of hibernation, and the obvious question is what significance that has for us on Earth.

If you ask the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which represents the current consensus on climate change, the answer is a reassuring “nothing”. But history and recent research suggest that is probably completely wrong. Why? Let’s take a closer look.