MaxedOutMama
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Canadian Kyoto Skeptics
Darcey at Dust My Broom notes that the new website Friends Of Science is challenging the politically skewed science of the IPCC and the Kyoto Treaty. Darcey writes:
The Friends of Science website is pretty good. Its mission statement:
And he says the Siple curve was "Manned" as well:
Also Carl at NOFP dug this up - the NOAA's adjusted temperatures may have a bias in them. The "adjustment" has been steadily increasing:
Believe it or not, that accounts for pretty much all the "observed" warming in the 20th century! Now this could lead to several logical conclusions:
I’m glad to see that this is slowly moving into mainstream news. I first heard it on a Canadian radio station the other day. Read the whole thing and check out the myth/facts sections on the Friends of Science website.The truth is slowly dawning on people - much of climate "science" in the last decade has been an almost deliberate scam. From the article:
He compared the investigation of climate change with that of a broken down car. "Ignoring the sun is like ignoring the engine, ignoring water vapor is like ignoring the transmission and focusing on human produced CO2 (carbon dioxide) is like looking at one nut on the right rear wheel," Ball said.An environmental nut, perhaps? I'm just waiting to see the day that a Liberal MP jumps up and down on a little Mann doll on a TV news show. If Canada really tries to implement Kyoto, that day may arrive within a couple of years.
The Friends of Science website is pretty good. Its mission statement:
To encourage and assist the Canadian Federal Government to re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocol by engaging in a national public debate on the scientific merit of Kyoto and the Global Warming issue, and to educate the public through dissemination of relevant, balanced and objective technical information on this subject.The part I enjoyed the most was the compendium of climate news, in the course of which I discovered that scientists and recent scientific studies don't agree at all even on how much sun is reaching the earth's surface:
> A confusing array of new and recent studies reveals that scientists know very little about how much sunlight is absorbed by Earth versus how much the planet reflects, how all this alters temperatures, and why any of it changes from one decade to the next. Determining Earth's reflectance is crucial to understanding climate change, scientists agree.In short, we have no clue on the basics yet. Plus, we're not sending out the satellites to study albedo like we were supposed to. And if you read nothing else, please read Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski's criticism of the ice core CO2 studies. He claims the numbers were adjusted in a way which can't be shown to be factually accurate:
The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13]
And he says the Siple curve was "Manned" as well:
The data from shallow ice cores, such as those from Siple, Antarctica[5, 6], are widely used as a proof of man-made increase of CO2 content in the global atmosphere, notably by IPCC[7]. These data show a clear inverse correlation between the decreasing CO2 concentrations, and the load-pressure increasing with depth (Figure 1 A). The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was “too high”. This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. The CO2 atmospheric concentration of about 328 ppmv was measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii as later as in 1973[8], i.e. 83 years after the ice was deposited at Siple.
Also Carl at NOFP dug this up - the NOAA's adjusted temperatures may have a bias in them. The "adjustment" has been steadily increasing:
Believe it or not, that accounts for pretty much all the "observed" warming in the 20th century! Now this could lead to several logical conclusions:
- Karl is a pretty useful guy to have around (Don't bother with flowers, I am a nerd. A bouquet of statistics means far, far more to me).
- This would account for the fact that ag stats (ground temps, etc) are showing differences with the "adjusted temperatures". Because ag stats show and have shown a "cooler" world than the NCDC temps.
- I must be stupid for spending so much time trying to figure out why the NCDC's figures differed so much from mine and not researching their dataset.
- This would account for why trophospheric measurements aren't showing the half a degree rise and the ground temps are.
Comments:
<< Home
Mama - you might find this interesting as well:
http://www.ser.org/
And I got this in my mailbox today:
Indigenous people, he said, have "very compelling observations and
insights," documenting changes in weather, the behavior of animals,
"and also the very taste of certain animals."
Environmental changes have a great impact on indigenous people, many
of whom have a strong relationship with the world around them,
relying on hunting, fishing, herding and gathering for sustenance. As
the environment changes, entire cultures are affected.
Nuttall pointed out that the Inuit word for weather is the same word
for intellect and consciousness.
"Change in climate is felt in a very deep, personal way, making it an
issue of cultural survival."
How severe are the changes? For the first time, Northerners are being
sunburned; skin cancer is becoming a concern. West Nile Virus,
transmitted by mosquitoes, is expected to soon make it to the Yukon.
Ground thawing, where it has never occurred, will disrupt buildings,
airports, homes, and accessibility to certain areas via winter ice
roads. Increasing exposure to severe storms is causing coastal
erosion, and animal habitat and biological diversity are being
affected.
http://www.ser.org/
And I got this in my mailbox today:
Indigenous people, he said, have "very compelling observations and
insights," documenting changes in weather, the behavior of animals,
"and also the very taste of certain animals."
Environmental changes have a great impact on indigenous people, many
of whom have a strong relationship with the world around them,
relying on hunting, fishing, herding and gathering for sustenance. As
the environment changes, entire cultures are affected.
Nuttall pointed out that the Inuit word for weather is the same word
for intellect and consciousness.
"Change in climate is felt in a very deep, personal way, making it an
issue of cultural survival."
How severe are the changes? For the first time, Northerners are being
sunburned; skin cancer is becoming a concern. West Nile Virus,
transmitted by mosquitoes, is expected to soon make it to the Yukon.
Ground thawing, where it has never occurred, will disrupt buildings,
airports, homes, and accessibility to certain areas via winter ice
roads. Increasing exposure to severe storms is causing coastal
erosion, and animal habitat and biological diversity are being
affected.
Sigh. When I was up north (Tri-state) you could get a sunburn easy enough. People had skin cancer.
According to the latest data, it doesn't seem to be getting warmer at the poles. It doesn't seem to be getting warmer in most places in the Alaska, either. It's certainly not getting warmer here; the blueberries were three weeks late.
On the other hand, it was warmer in Greenland back in the middle ages for a while. Agriculture was possible there. Southern England was a wine-making area. I think the world's climate always changes, and people are going to have to live with that.
We are not going to be able to even figure out the basics of the world's climate without investing in serious and vetted research, and instead we have chosen to fart around with Kyoto which is not going to change the climate one way or another. This seems to be an absolute fallacy to me.
I strongly support a move to nuclear power, because it would cut down on GHG emissions. I strong support reforestation and the type of projects that SER appears to be doing. What I don't support is fantasy-science writ large, because throwing money away while not doing the basic research is ludicrous.
Climate change is a real threat, because sooner or later it's going to change quite a bit, whether we are affecting it noticeably or not. The fact that we don't understand what is affecting the climate's changes is frightening to anyone who sits down and thinks about it. Fake science isn't going to help.
Post a Comment
According to the latest data, it doesn't seem to be getting warmer at the poles. It doesn't seem to be getting warmer in most places in the Alaska, either. It's certainly not getting warmer here; the blueberries were three weeks late.
On the other hand, it was warmer in Greenland back in the middle ages for a while. Agriculture was possible there. Southern England was a wine-making area. I think the world's climate always changes, and people are going to have to live with that.
We are not going to be able to even figure out the basics of the world's climate without investing in serious and vetted research, and instead we have chosen to fart around with Kyoto which is not going to change the climate one way or another. This seems to be an absolute fallacy to me.
I strongly support a move to nuclear power, because it would cut down on GHG emissions. I strong support reforestation and the type of projects that SER appears to be doing. What I don't support is fantasy-science writ large, because throwing money away while not doing the basic research is ludicrous.
Climate change is a real threat, because sooner or later it's going to change quite a bit, whether we are affecting it noticeably or not. The fact that we don't understand what is affecting the climate's changes is frightening to anyone who sits down and thinks about it. Fake science isn't going to help.
<< Home
