Wednesday, October 22, 2014

GREETINGS, EARTHLINGS ! TAKE US TO YOUR DEMONIC MEGALOMANIACS AND THEIR USEFUL IDIOT ECOWARRIORS

Breitbart columnist & perpetual third former James Dellingpole deals with critical commentary the old-fashioned way, by banning it.        This leaves his fans to second him, often with peculiar effect, like
                     
"engineer/scientist/writer active in exposing the FRAUDS of Carbon climate forcing, 'sustainable' energy, 'peak' oil and big bang"
" What is it about elitist directed FAUX SCIENCE that you refuse to comprehend ???

Carbon climate forcing, 'sustainable' energy, 'peak' oil and big bang are all CRAP false paradigm narratives.

We have been systematically LIED to about everything, but your too simpleminded to notice.

Humans are Carbon life forms, and all life on Earth is dependent on photosynthesis, which is a direct function of atmospheric CO2 levels...

Humans suffer from leadership by demonic megalomaniacs and their useful idiot eco warriors. 

Embracing SNUFF ART and SNUFF NOVELS are a demonstration of the anti-life bias in this demented mindset.

There is NO Carbon climate forcing, NO magic greenhouse gas and NO phantom back radiation warming.

There is an intentional fraud of taxpayer funded, elitist directed climate alchemy, which has made a mockery of science."
   ALL  APPARENTLY  INSANE  BREITBART  CONTENT & DEMENTED  FANBOI  COMMENTS  GUARANTEED  REAL

Sunday, October 19, 2014

WE'RE STUCK MR. SULU--THE TRANSPORTER RAN OUT OF OATS

For ready made Star Trek dialog,
 nothing beats WUWT fanboys ruminating on  
 a dry as dust environmental economics paper 

    Dodgy Geezer
        " …we are now seeing the true colours of environmentalism – it is to halt and reverse the development of humanity.
 So the question is: ‘What is the correct amount of energy for an average human to use in a day?'

       Let’s work in HorsePower / Hour,  because that produces an easy comparison with history:
                 5 ?  a typical ploughed field with 1 horse   
            500?   a  decent  car  journey 
            5000?   a  flight  in an  airliner
               5,000,000?  
rather arbitrary figure for a space rocket 
      5,000,000,000? 
completely arbitrary figure for
 a fusion-powered teleporter yet to be invented     

Brute Wow…It now becomes obvious that the only goal of leftist Warmists is to destroy the economy of the US, decimate the middle class, and install socialism. The true objective of the left is to turn America into a third-world banana republic. They are insane.

Brent
 except that this fifth column of saboteurs is not insane.
It’s ever clearer that the word “researcher” has been appropriated by commies who do no research into physical phenomena.

angelartiste1
        
the left is rooting for Ebola to rid the world of the virus of humanity. 
I had a leftist roommate in college who seriously said that he wished he were the only human left on Earth         
ntesdorf
        just more CO2-Alarmism driven economic drivel. As far as they are concerned the poor of the World can just creep away and freeze to death in the darkness. 
mothcatcher
        How about a huge, rousing cheer for for all those who work in big oil and gas? 
   Jimbo 
         
First they came for coal, and I did not speak out—Because I did not use coal.
Then they came for natural gas, and I did not speak out—Because I did not use natural gas. 
Then they came for solar and windpower —and there was no one left to speak for me. 
      

                 


Wednesday, October 15, 2014

THE DISCOVERY OF THE EAST POLE

If  we are to believe this newly published diagram  from an article by Berkeley geophysicists Courtney Raine and Paul Renne in 
Geophysical Journal International:

for a few glorious years in the 787th millennium BC, 
Earth had an East Magnetic Pole
at Latitude O Longitude O,
in the middle of the Bight of Benin.












Monday, October 13, 2014

BE VERY AFRAID

IF YOU THINK THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE IS SCARY,
 TRY A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL  
  DEVOTED TO BLOG  COMMENTS:

ANSWERING CTHULHU'S CALL


FORGET KERRY-THE REAL QUESTION IS WHETHER 
 UNDERWATER VOLCANOES AND COSMIC RAYS 
CAN STOP THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE ?


Saturday, October 11, 2014

DISHING COLD CURRY AT THE NEWSCORP BUFFET

SCIENCE  BEFORE & AFTER AT  THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
It's what the WSJ did to the first draft of Judith Curry's recent Op-Ed.
What she wrote is shown in black Arial.
What Newscorp published appears in red Times Roman.
Some insensitivity about climate change 
The Global Warming Statistical Meltdown
At the recent UN Climate Summit, Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon stated: “Without significant cuts in emissions by all countries, and in key sectors, the window of opportunity to stay within less than 2 degrees will soon close forever.”
At the recent United Nations Climate Summit, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that “Without significant cuts in emissions by all countries, and in key sectors, the window of opportunity to stay within less than 2 degrees [of warming] will soon close forever.” Actually, this window of opportunity may remain open for quite some time. A growing body of evidence suggests that the climate is less sensitive to increases in carbon-dioxide emissions than policy makers generally assume—and that the need for reductions in such emissions is less urgent.
In the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, preventing ‘dangerous human interference’ with the climate has been defined – rather arbitrarily – as limiting warming to more than 2oC above preindustrial temperatures. The Earth’s surface temperatures have already warmed about 0.8oC, leaving only 1.2oC before reaching allegedly ‘dangerous’ levels.  Based upon global climate model simulations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (AR5; 2013) projects a further increase in global mean surface temperatures with continued emissions to exceed 1.2oC sometime within the 21st century, with the timing and magnitude of the exceedance depending on future emissions.
If and when we reach this dangerous level of human caused warming depends not only on how quickly emissions rise, but also on the sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gas induced warming.  If climate sensitivity is high, then we can expect substantial warming in the coming century if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase. If climate sensitivity is low, then future warming will be substantially lower.
According to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, preventing “dangerous human interference” with the climate is defined, rather arbitrarily, as limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures. The Earth’s surface temperatures have already warmed about 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1850-1900. This leaves 1.2 degrees Celsius (about 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) to go.
In its most optimistic projections, which assume a substantial decline in emissions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that the “dangerous” level might never be reached. In its most extreme, pessimistic projections, which assume heavy use of coal and rapid population growth, the threshold could be exceeded as early as 2040. But these projections reflect the effects of rising emissions on temperatures simulated by climate models, which are being challenged by recent observations.
Climate sensitivity is the global surface warming that occurs when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles. Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the rise in temperature once the climate system has fully warmed up, a process taking centuries due to the enormous heat capacity of the ocean. Transient climate response is a shorter-term measure of sensitivity, over a 70 year timeframe during which carbon dioxide concentrations double.
Human-caused warming depends not only on increases in greenhouse gases but also on how “sensitive” the climate is to these increases. Climate sensitivity is defined as the global surface warming that occurs when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles. If climate sensitivity is high, then we can expect substantial warming in the coming century as emissions continue to increase. If climate sensitivity is low, then future warming will be substantially lower, and it may be several generations before we reach what the U.N. considers a dangerous level, even with high emissions.
The IPCC AR5 concluded that equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C and the transient climate response is likely in the range of 1.0°C to 2.5°C.  Climate model simulations produce values in the upper region of these ranges, with most climate models having equilibrium climate sensitivity values exceeding 3.5oC and transient climate response values exceeding 1.8oC.
The IPCC’s latest report (published in 2013) concluded that the actual change in 70 years if carbon-dioxide concentrations double, called the transient climate response, is likely in the range of 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius. Most climate models have transient climate response values exceeding 1.8 degrees Celsius. But the IPCC report notes the substantial discrepancy between recent observation-based estimates of climate sensitivity and estimates from climate models.
Nicholas Lewis and I have just published a study in Climate Dynamics that shows the best estimate for transient climate response is 1.33 degrees Celsius with a likely range of 1.05-1.80 degrees Celsius. Using an observation-based energy-balance approach, our calculations used the same data for the effects on the Earth’s energy balance of changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and other drivers of climate change given by the IPCC’s latest report.
At the lower end of the sensitivity ranges reported by the IPCC AR5 are values of the climate sensitivity determined using an energy budget model approach that matches global surface temperatures with greenhouse gas concentrations and other forcings (such as solar variations and aerosol forcings) over the last century or so. I coauthored a paper recently published in Climate Dynamics that used this approach to determine climate sensitivity.  Our calculations used the same forcing data given by the IPCC AR5, and we included a detailed accounting of the impact of uncertainties in the forcing data on our climate sensitivity estimates.
We also estimated what the long-term warming from a doubling of carbon-dioxide concentrations would be, once the deep ocean had warmed up. Our estimates of sensitivity, both over a 70-year time-frame and long term, are far lower than the average values of sensitivity determined from global climate models that are used for warming projections. Also our ranges are narrower, with far lower upper limits than reported by the IPCC’s latest report. Even our upper limits lie below the average values of climate models.
Our results show the best (median) estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity is 1.64oC, with a likely (17–83% probability) range of 1.25–2.45oC.  The median estimate for Transient Climate Response is 1.33oC with a likely range of 10.5-1.80oC.  Most significantly, our new results support narrower likely ranges for climate sensitivity with far lower upper limits than reported by the IPCC AR5.  Our upper limits lie below – for equilibrium climate sensitivity, substantially below – the average values of climate models used for warming projections.  The true climate sensitivity may even be lower, since the energy budget model assumes that all climate change is forced, and does not account for the effects of decadal and century scale internal variability associated with long-term ocean oscillations.
These new climate sensitivity estimates adds to the growing evidence that climate models are running ‘too hot.’ At the heart of the recent scientific debate on climate change is the ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in global warming – the period since 1998 during which global average surface temperatures have not increased. This observed warming hiatus contrasts with the expectation from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that warming would proceed at a rate of 0.2oC/per decade in the early decades of the 21st century. The warming hiatus combined with assessments that the climate model sensitivities are too high raises serious questions as to whether the climate model projections of 21st century have much utility for decision making.
Our paper is not an outlier. More than a dozen other observation-based studies have found climate sensitivity values lower than those determined using global climate models, including recent papers published in Environmentrics (2012), Nature Geoscience (2013) and Earth Systems Dynamics (2014). These new climate sensitivity estimates add to the growing evidence that climate models are running “too hot.” Moreover, the estimates in these empirical studies are being borne out by the much-discussed “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming—the period since 1998 during which global average surface temperatures have not significantly increased.
The sensitivity of our climate to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide is at the heart of the public debate on the appropriate policy response to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climate sensitivity and estimates of its uncertainty are key inputs into the economic models that drive cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon.
The sensitivity of the climate to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide is a central question in the debate on the appropriate policy response to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climate sensitivity and estimates of its uncertainty are key inputs into the economic models that drive cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon.
Continuing to use the higher global climate model-derived values of climate sensitivity skews the cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon. The implications of the lower values of climate sensitivity in our paper is that human caused warming near the end of the 21st century should be less than the 2oC ‘danger’ level for all but the most extreme emission scenario considered by the IPCC AR5. This delay in the warming – relative to climate model projections –  relaxes the phase out period for greenhouse gas emissions, allowing more time to find ways to decarbonize the economy affordably and the flexibility to revise our policies as further information becomes available.
Continuing to rely on climate-model warming projections based on high, model-derived values of climate sensitivity skews the cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon. This can bias policy decisions. The implications of the lower values of climate sensitivity in our paper, as well as similar other recent studies, is that human-caused warming near the end of the 21st century should be less than the 2-degrees-Celsius “danger” level for all but the IPCC’s most extreme emission scenario.
This slower rate of warming—relative to climate model projections—means there is less urgency to phase out greenhouse gas emissions now, and more time to find ways to decarbonize the economy affordably. It also allows us the flexibility to revise our policies as further information becomes available.