That the debate is highly politicized is not new, nor is it more than passably annoying.
Good news for the moneyed interest is any new bubble. NO MATTER the subject. Tulips, Houses, OIL, etc. ad nauseum.
All the good ones have gone belly up lately. Carbon was tossed around in Germany in the early seventies, only at that time it was to have been a "radical" anthem.
Everything Al Gore owns is Stolen. Or Begged, or Fraud.
He co-opted the RED LETTER 10 years ago, when he realized his license to STEAL would not be re-qualified.
POLAR ICE MISSING? Hey, ICE does what it does, it melts. The problem is a lack of replenishment; when I was at School, lack of precipitation was a result of COLD TREND.
I prefer warm.........
Sides, there ain't enough 'science' in AGW to make up a testable sample for analysis, just sayin'
"...by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today."
The anthropogenic attribution meme rang a bell, thought I`d seen a quote from Trenberth recently in relation to a generic 5% extreme weather event anthropogenic attribution, stuffed if I can recall where I saw it, but found this on JC`s site
I thought the first sentence in the last para of her post was quite poignant
Quote:
Summary: Not sure what the motive is for the attribution of extreme events, other than to build political will for climate change policies. More comprehensive analysis of regional extreme events (including those in the paleo records, of which we need more of) in the context of known modes of natural climate variability is probably the single most useful thing that could be done in this regard. In terms of attribution services and the broader issues of a National Climate Service, well don’t get me started (more on this in a future thread.)
Atmospheric physics is well outside my area, so I'm perfectly happy to accept that a doubling of CO2 concentration will lead to an approximate 1 degree C of global warming. What geology (my area) shows, is that changes in atmospheric CO2 never have led to runaway CGW (e.g Scotese 2002, Ruddiman 2001). Where the jury is well and truly still out, is scale and sign of the feedbacks. My opinion (FWIW) is that these will turn out to be (net) negative.
I don't recall the IPCC saying that there would be 'runaway' climate change, that's a bit of a different topic - and one that hasn't received much attention judging from my quick literature search.
Another attempt to silence anyone who dares to disagree with them, but as usual no attempt to discus the science just ridicule the people:
"The science is scuttled: Abraham, Gleick, and Trenberth resort to libeling Spencer and Christy"
"One point Dr. Pielke touches on related to an orbital decay correction applied to the UAH satellite measurement comes from his first hand experience, and I urge readers to read it fully to get the history. One line from the op-ed in The Daily Climate bothered me in particular:
Over the years, Spencer and Christy developed a reputation for making serial mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover.
This my friends, is breathtaking for its sheer arrogance, agenda, and the scuttling of the scientific process in one sentence."
I don't recall the IPCC saying that there would be 'runaway' climate change, that's a bit of a different topic - and one that hasn't received much attention judging from my quick literature search.
So, a doubling of CO2 concentration may, or may not lead to an increase in global temperature of about 1 degree C. We seem to be in agreement. What's your point? I did not mention climate change. Climate changes, that's what climate does. You are muddying the water.
Another attempt to silence anyone who dares to disagree with them, but as usual no attempt to discus the science just ridicule the people:
They won't discuss the science because they can't win, instead they resort to trashing them.
Considering how everything's falling apart around them there lies a dangerous possibility. They're desperate, and desperate people with ambitions of power this extreme tend to be willing to resort to extreme measures to win. If you can't win by using the science, the pseudoscience, the fear-mongering, and character assassination, they may try and produce some kind of crisis to achieve their objectives, whatever that may be.
I don't recall the IPCC saying that there would be 'runaway' climate change, that's a bit of a different topic - and one that hasn't received much attention judging from my quick literature search.
I have a feeling you are correct in making that statement insofar as the IPCC is concerned, however I also recall that Penny Wong, among others, here in Oz a couple of years ago was continually spouting
Would love to know where the so-called "tipping-point" thing originated. And it`s real...according to every other article related to "climate change" on ABC`s "The Drum"...
Heard it on the 6 o`clock news more than once too, very knowledgeable-sounding people being interviewed. They wouldn`t be telling fibs, surely not?
Whether 350 ppm or 450 ppm, in the past we've had concentrations several times that and had normal temperatures (similar to present, even cooler) regardless.
Saw this and whether you buy into man made global warming or not. I have to say this is the kind of nonsense it breeds. It's bizarre and potentially very dangerous. Something as insane as this idea would never see the light of day in normal times. It's one thing to say that we are accidently changing the climate. It's quite another to try and alter it deliberately. Reducing global temperature by 2degC is simply insane.
Scientists to create artificial volcano for climate change experiment
Scientists will attempt to pump water up a hose suspended one kilometre off the ground beneath a helium-filled balloon.
The test will provide valuable data that could pave the way to a giant geoengineering project in decades to come.
The long-term vision is to tether 20 kilometre-long pipes to balloons the size of Wembley stadium.
Light-scattering particles would be pumped high into the atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays and cool the earth.
The effect would be similar to that of a volcanic eruption spewing out clouds of sulphate droplets which can have an impact on the climate.
Dr Matt Watson, from the University of Bristol, who is leading the Spice (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) project, said: ''This is a controversial and potentially alarming subject.
''We're going to try to pump tap water to a height of one kilometre through a pipe as a test of the technology.''
The test will take place on a disused airfield at Sculthorpe, north Norfolk, using a dirigible ''blimp'' balloon of the type commonly used to carry adverts or take photos.
Water will be forced up the pipe using an ordinary pressure pump available from hardware stores.
After spouting from the top the water will evaporate or fall to the ground as light ''rain''.
Measurements and recordings made by the scientists will help shape the next stages of the research.
Constructing artificial volcanoes to alter climate is seen as a ''last resort'' if it proves impossible to bring carbon emissions under control.
Pouring 10 million tonnes of material into the stratosphere each using 10 to 20 giant balloons could achieve a 2C global drop in temperature, the scientists believe.
Sulphate emissions from the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines in June 1991 reduced world temperature by 0.5C for two years.
Experts believe particles of clay, salts or metallic oxides suspended in liquid would prove more effective than the sulphates produced by real volcanoes.
The aerodynamically designed suspended pipes would probably be sited far out to sea.
Dr Hugh Hunt, from Cambridge University, who will head the Sculthorpe test, said: ''To pump water to one kilometre you need a pressure of 100 bar. When we start thinking about 20 kilometres we're talking about 4,000 bar of pressure. You don't get that kind of pressure at B&Q.''
Details of the three year, £1.6 million Spice project were presented today at the British Science Festival at the University of Bradford.
Dr Watson stressed that a full-scale geoengineering project would involve enormous engineering challenges, a careful analysis of the risks, and the co-operation of governments around the world.
Possible hazards included depletion of the ozone layer and unpredictable effects on rainfall.
''We are still decades away from doing this and it's not simply a science decision,'' said Dr Watson. ''There are ethical and governmental decisions around this that are huge. Just because we can do it doesn't mean that we have the right to do it.''
Despite the hurdles the scientists believe the advanced technology needed to make such a project possible is not far away.
''I imagine there will be tethered balloons at 20 kilometres within the next few years,'' said Dr Hunt.
''It's tantalisingly close in quite a number of technologies.. the engineering challenge is what excites us.''
Saw this and whether you buy into man made global warming or not. I have to say this is the kind of nonsense it breeds. It's bizarre and potentially very dangerous. Something as insane as this idea would never see the light of day in normal times. It's one thing to say that we are accidently changing the climate. It's quite another to try and alter it deliberately. Reducing global temperature by 2degC is simply insane.
Let's admit it, corsair. If we are saying that pumping a few tons of CO2 (relatively) into the atmosphere (using millions of cars, factories, coal-fired power stations, etc.) does not really amount to "AGW", this faintly ridiculous project will certainly not result in "AGC". What is most alarming is that they might find financing for this latest moonbat scheme.... from our pockets, of course.
Can someone supply the funds to gather these academics together that think our planet's climate is controlled by man and bang their heads to a mushy pulp or until common sense prevails?
A glance through historical records will show that nothing we have experienced in terms of weather/climate in recent years is any worse than in previous Millennia!
And stop wasting all that money on renewables and biofuels and anything carbon being traded/sequestered/footprinted/scammed.
So the BAS is using Green Garbage theories - for what purpose other than to get more funding but pretending that the Antarctic is melting due to mankind's CO2 output? That exists as a poor computer model prediction but the hard facts [before distortion by certain parties!] seem to point to a lack of temperature increase over the last decade and as for the myth that is the "Ozone Hole" being a result of mankind using fridges/air con/spray cans that surely is a joke!
What with all that garbage and people like Pen Hadow still claiming his Arctic expedition is helping science 'move forward' when will these academics finally realise they are about as accurate with their theories as Phlogiston was a scientific fact.
And AGW/ClimateChange/Disruption isn't as near reality as Phlogiston was!
None of the papers by Jones, Mann etc can be regarded as serious scientific papers, Trenberth has said so in a comment on Spencer and Braswell 2011 in Remote Sensing. (peer reviewed and published on the day it was received)
“reproducibility and openness should be a benchmark of any serious study.”
