Sharing photos, videos, vintage images I've discovered, and -- occasionally -- commentary and thoughts from retired life and travels.

environment

Climategate

November 21, 2009

image

While I haven’t blogged about it for a while, I read material related to global warming climate change every day, so it was with great interest yesterday morning that I read of the release of allegedly stolen anthropogenic global warming climate change correspondence.

I had woken early for some reason and was unable to get back to sleep.  By 4:30, I was up and checking email, blogs and the news-feeds that I subscribe to.

A little over an hour later, I was downloading the files.

It’s going to be interesting to see where this is going to end up.  Articles are already appearing in the mainstream media.

See new article: Climategate update.

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

{ 9 comments }

Cap and what?*^%#!!!

June 29, 2009

A musical take on cap and tax… er, trade.

day 25

{ 0 comments }

2814868958 9a95fc538d

I discovered just a little while ago that access to individual posts on this blog was unavailable and commenting was not available. This was because of something I did with some files on the server earlier today — not a web host issue. I knew that I should have checked after I was done, but didn’t.

It’s all back to normal now. It was only a 30 second fix, because it’s something that happened before and I knew where to look.

——

A couple of days ago, a park visitor from Spain was injured by a Yellowstone National Park bison (aka American buffalo).

“At approximately 11:25 a.m., the woman and her husband were using a pay phone in the Canyon lodging area with their backs to the road. According to witnesses, two bull bison walked down the road, passing within 20 feet of the couple. One of the bison left the road, walked up behind the woman and butted her into the air. The couple, who were facing away from the road, did not see the bison.”

The woman was taken to the Lake Clinic where she was treated for minor injuries and released.

This quite an unusual event. Bison are not usually aggressive unless someone has encroached upon their space. We have seen numerous instances where people have gotten way too close to these critters and nothing happened. Park regulations require that a minimum distance of 25 yard must be maintained from bison.

Bison are very, very common in the Canyon area.

We still hope to make it to Yellowstone this year. However, we may not have as much time available as we had originally thought.

——

Climate change legislation — The Waxman/Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act pass by a very slim margin today in the US House of Representatives. I actually watched some of the debate on CSPAN. I’ve got just a few comments.

  • They didn’t even have a properly collated official copy of the bill in the room during the debate. Three hundred pages were revised overnight and one of the House staff was in the process of inserting pages into the correct place in the “official copy” during the closing minutes of the floor debate.
  • The debate on the floor was limited to 3 hours for a bill that may be one of the largest tax bills in the history of the country.
  • While virtually every American would end up with higher energy costs as a result of the bill, as I understand it, it’s requirements would have negligible impact on global warming, if anthropogenic (human caused) global warming (AGW) were a proven fact rather than an unproven hypothesis.
  • The premise of the bill is predicated on the assumption that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a proven scientific fact. The earth has been warming up until the last ten years. Global carbon dioxide levels have been rising, at least in part due to human activities, even during the last ten years as global temperature anomalies have been stable or dropping. While it would seem obvious to blame rising temperatures on carbon dioxide produced by man, there is no proof that continued rising CO2 will result in a continued rise in global temperatures. The predictions of rising temperatures are the product of computer climate models that assume that anthropogenic global warming is a proven scientific fact rather than an unproven hypothesis.
  • Our Representative, voted against it. I think I voted against him in 2008. He’s got my vote in 2010.

——

Climate change — I read material on climate change almost every day.

I am absolutely appalled at the gloom and doom, the-sky-is-falling alarmism that is in the media on a daily basis.

I’m not sure at what point I stopped simply accepting anthropogenic (human caused) global warming. I can say that for well over a year I’ve been reading a lot of climate change related material and have a much better understanding of the topic than I once had. My first blog post on climate was It’s not a hypothesis… It’s not a theory… it’s a CONSENSUS! last year.

Below is some of what I’ve come to believe and understand related to the Earth’s climate.

  • Anthropogenic global warming is an unproven hypothesis.
  • Even though anthropogenic global warming is an unproven hypothesis, it is likely that some warming has resulted from carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere by humans.
  • There is no proof that continued rise in CO2 will result in continued rise in global temperatures.
  • Carbon Dioxide Absorption Peaks

    Carbon Dioxide Absorption Peaks

  • Carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas by absorbing infrared radiation in three narrow bands of frequencies, (2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM)), meaning that most of the heat producing infrared radiation frequencies escapes absorption by CO2.  The main peak, 15 µM, is absorbed completely within about 10 meters of the ground meaning that there is no more to absorb.  Doubling the human contribution of CO2 would reduce this distance. Reducing the distance for absorption would not result in an increase in temperature.
  • The science of climate change is not settled.  Science is never settled. There is always more to learn, more to add.
  • Consensus on climate change is not science.  It’s politics.  Science isn’t done by consensus, as I understand it.
  • For a scientist to be a skeptic on climate change is not a bad thing.  Scepticism and questioning are important aspects of science.
  • The Earth appears to have been cooling overall for most of this young century — 2000 to 2009.
  • The reports of the danger to polar bears are premature.  They are also recycled over and over again.
  • The prediction of an Arctic free of  ice is  premature.  AMSRE-A Sea Ice Extent has 6 1/2 years of history. The sea arctic sea ice extent currently is higher than any of the other years at this point in the annual cycle. AMSRE-A (Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer – Earth Observing System).
  • Antarctic sea ice extent is getting larger.
  • A recent survey found Arctic ice to be thicker than expected.  (radiobremen)
  • The heat content of the world’s ocean is dropping – Q = mc∆T. (The Global Warming Hypothesis and Ocean Heat)
day 22

{ 4 comments }

sun_over_mist_on_river

You’ve heard the claims:

“The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming.” — Al Gore

“In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities…”The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, by Naomi Oreskes, Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686

I’ve looked for the consensus.  I haven’t found it.  I’ll let you know if I do.

Even if there is a consensus, it’s of little value if the underlying basis of the consensus is faulty:

It is amazing that some political leaders proclaim the debate over global warming is “over” when some of the meteorological community’s best minds continue to clash over the nature and magnitude of a phenomenon that could entirely offset the effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. (Climate Change Reconsidered , the 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), page 17)

The hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming and the predictions of future temperature rise are heavily dependent upon computer models that do not incorporate many of the significant complexities of Earth’s climate.  See The problem is in the modeling.

Is consensus science or is consensus politics?

1

{ 4 comments }

climate-change-revisited

Predictions of global warming hinge not upon proven scientific principles but, rather, upon climate models — in other words, computer programs.

Unfortunately, even modern advanced computers appear to be unable to accurately model the complexities of all the diverse natural and human related processes that do or may impact global climate.  Climate Change Reconsidered , the 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), states:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) places great confidence in the ability of general circulation models (GCMs) to simulate future climate and attribute observed climate change to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. It says “climate models are based on well-established physical principles and have been demonstrated to reproduce observed features of recent climate … and past climate changes … There is considerable confidence that Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental and larger scales” (IPCC,
2007-I, p. 591).

To be of any validity, GCMs must incorporate all of the many physical, chemical, and biological processes that influence climate in the real world, and they must do so correctly. A review of the scientific literature reveals numerous deficiencies and shortcomings in today’s state-of-the-art models, some of which deficiencies could even alter the sign of projected climate change.

The first chapter of the recently published NIPCC report is “Global Climate Models and Their Limitations

{ 0 comments }

The sun wasn’t totally spotless in April.  Unfortunately, the most recent new spot is an old spot.

“Say WHAT?” You ask. “How can a new spot be an old spot?”

Sunspot polarity, March 27, 2008 magnetogram

Sunspot polarity, March 27, 2008 magnetogram

Right now, the sunspot activity is in a low period between sunspot cycles.  Sunspots are features on the sun that are cooler that their surrounding areas.  That’s why they appear dark.

Sunspots are also magnetic features, having polarity, with north and south poles, much like a magnet.  Their magnetic alignment — where the poles are in relationship to each other — is dependent upon what hemisphere they are in and, more importantly to this discussion, what solar cycle they are in.

Sunspot polarity is reversed from one sunspot cycle to the next.  During the solar minimum period when sunspot activity is at the lowest, sunspots from both cycles can appear.  Most of the recent sunspots have had the polarity for cycle 24; they have been “new” sunspots.  The most recent sunspot has the polarity of cycle 23; thus, an “old” sunspot.

Sunspot 1016, April 30, 2009

Sunspot 1016, April 30, 2009

There were but 2 sunspots, as I recall, during the month of April, neither of them very significant.  Overall solar activity remains low.  According to spaceweather.com, “Until these old cycle sunspots go away, the next solar cycle will remain in abeyance.”

What does it all mean?

It wasn’t that long ago that scientists were predicting a much different level of activity for the sun.  A March 10, 2006 NASA article headlined Solar Storm Warning, said:

This week researchers announced that a storm is coming–the most intense solar maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a team led by Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). “The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one,” she says. If correct, the years ahead could produce a burst of solar activity second only to the historic Solar Max of 1958.

It looks like they really missed the mark.

Last month, in The Sun Has Lost Its Spots — Part 2, I asked, “What happens when the solar indicators remain low  for an extended period of time?”

A number of scientists are projecting that global warming is over, for now, and that global average temperatures will be dropping for the next 20 to 30 years.  This is based on predictions that solar output will remain low for an extended period of time.

projected_temperature_profile

A number of indicators seem to be supporting the idea that global warming has stopped for now.

{ 3 comments }

Impressions on Climate

April 28, 2009

I used to accept that the Earth was warming because of rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, although I was a little troubled by some of the media buzz around it.  The electric power company I worked for had committed to limiting its carbon emissions at or below its 2000 levels, so there had to be substance behind global warming theory.

I’m not sure at what point I stopped simply accepting anthropogenic (human caused) global warming. I can say that for well over a year I’ve been reading a lot of climate change related material and have a much better understanding of the topic than I once had. My first blog post on climate was It’s not a hypothesis… It’s not a theory… it’s a CONSENSUS! eleven months ago.

Below is some of what I’ve come to believe and understand related to the Earth’s climate.

  • Anthropogenic global warming is an unproven hypothesis.
  • Even though anthropogenic global warming is an unproven hypothesis, it is likely that some warming has resulted from carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere by humans.
  • There is no proof that continued rise in CO2 will result in continued rise in global temperatures.

image

Carbon Dioxide Absorption Peaks

  • Carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas by absorbing infrared radiation in three narrow bands of frequencies, (2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM)), meaning that most of the heat producing infrared radiation frequencies escapes absorption by CO2.  The main peak, 15 µM, is absorbed completely within about 10 meters of the ground meaning that there is no more to absorb.  Doubling the human contribution of CO2 would reduce this distance. Reducing the distance for absorption would not result in an increase in temperature.
  • The science of climate change is not settled.  Science is never settled. There is always more to learn, more to add.
  • Consensus on climate change is not science.  It’s politics.  Science isn’t done by consensus, as I understand it.
  • For a scientist to be a skeptic on climate change is not a bad thing.  Scepticism and questioning are important aspects of science.
  • The Earth appears to have been cooling overall for most of this young century.
  • The reports of the danger to polar bears are premature.  They are also recycled over and over again.
  • The prediction of an Arctic free of  ice is  premature.  AMSRE-A Sea Ice Extent has 6 1/2 years of history. The sea arctic sea ice extent currently is higher than any of the other years at this point in the annual cycle. AMSRE-A (Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer – Earth Observing System).
  • Antarctic sea ice extent is getting larger.
  • A recent survey found Arctic ice to be thicker than expected.  (radiobremen)

{ 0 comments }

The old becomes new

April 11, 2009

Climate change “alarmists” want to stop the use of coal and predict that the fabled Northwest Passage will be free of ice and passable in the near future.

coal and the northwest passage

West Seattle Herald, Seattle, Washington, March 26, 1931

{ 2 comments }

spotless_sun_april_5_2009

Spotless Sun - April 5, 2009

A little over 2 months ago, I wrote about the extended lack of spots on the sun (The Sun Has Lost Its Spots).

The sun has remained essentially spotless since then and has been blank 87% of 2009 through April 4th.  In 2008, the sun was blank 266 out 366 days (73%) and was the blankest year since 1913.

We are currently in the solar minimum phase of the solar cycle — the part of the cycle where the fewest sunspots appear. A typical solar minimum is 485 days.  The current solar minimum is 594 days and counting.

A typical solar cycle is about 11 years in length, with lengths since 1900 varying from 9.8 years to over 12 years. The current solar cycle length, which began in May 1996, is approaching 13 years, though several years ago the end had been projected for Spring of 2007. According to sunspot expert Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center, “We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum.”

NASA has taken an interest in the current solar minimum and has solicited proposals “to study the causes and consequences of the minimum of Solar Cycle 23.”  Scientists intending to propose a study have to let NASA know of their intent by April 17th and their proposals must be submitted by June 5th.

Besides a dearth of sunspots, other solar indicators are also much lower than normal.

  • Measured by instruments on satellites, the solar wind is 20% below what it was in the 1990s and is at the lowest point since solar wind measurements began in the 1960s.
  • Measurements of solar irradiance by other satellites indicate the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% in visible light and 6% in extreme ultraviolet wavelengths – a 12 year low.
  • The sun’s radio emissions, measured by radio telescopes, are the lowest since 1955.

The sun is the source of the energy that warms Earth and likely has a significant impact on climate and climate change.

What happens when the solar indicators remain low  for an extended period of time?

{ 5 comments }

I’m not a scientist and will never be one; thus, I’ll never participate in the scientific investigation of climate change.

However, I do have a fairly technical background and do have some ability to do a little bit of critical thinking and evaluation, so I’ve been doing quite a bit of online research related to climate change. I must admit that a good share of what I’ve read is by people who are skeptics — sometimes called deniers by some of the most ardent global warming alarmists — to one degree or another of human caused global warming.

I’ve included links on the site to quite a few of the items I’ve been looking at and I’ll continue adding more as I find them.

For any who may be interested, the links can be found from the drop down menu on the top bar by clicking on References and then select the appropriate category, as shown in the picture on the right.

I’ll be going back to review a lot of these, including those that I have printed out, to refresh my memeory and to weigh some of the newer (to me) material against some that I read a while ago.

My reading is derived from a number of sources.

I have two google news feeds related to the topic. One of them sends me news stories containing the key phrase climate change. The other feed gives me stories that contain the words sunspot and solar.

I am also subscribed to several blogs that are related to climate change. Most of them can be found on the sidebar on the right side of this page.

Other sources include

  • those found on Google searches on words or phrases related to what I am currently trying to understand

  • links from other pages or sites

My blogging plans for On Climate are to publish on a semi-regular basis, probably a couple of times a month, but it may be more or less often than that depending on what other things are happening in my life and on my other blogs.

(In the interest of consolidating online material, this post and the reference material was moved from a blog that has been inactive since last year. —  MpG 9/11/2010)

Audio

From the Blogs – Interesting Posts

Images and Graphs

Media

Testimony

  • Testimony of Patrick J. Michaels to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee of Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives – “… the rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the midrange suite of IPCC climate models.” February 12, 2008
  • Climate Change – Statement of William Happer Before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, February 25, 2009, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton University
  •  

    Videos

  • The Great Global Warming Swindle – BBC
  • Apocalypse? No! – Lord Christopher Monkton, July 30, 2008 (1:26:31) long, but interesting
  • Unstoppable Solar Cycles
  • Balance and Context in the Global Warming Debate,  Professor Bob Carter, Climate Conference (Heartland Institute), New York, March 2, 2008
  • Testing the Hypothesis of Dangerous Human Cause Global Warming – Professor Bob Carte, School of Earth and Environmental Science, James Cook University, Townsville
  • Why the IPCC models are wrong
  • Dr. Pat Michaels, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute, speaks to The Republican Women’s Network on climate change
  • Climate Change – Cato Institute Video of Patrick Michaels interview excerpts
  • Dr. Patrick Michaels on Fox, January 28, 2009
  • Don Easterbrook and Pat Michaels on Glenn Beck (CNN), March 13, 2007
  • Dr. Patrick Michaels on BBC, February 17, 2009
  • Al Gore Debates Global Warming – junksciencecom
  • The Great Global Warming Swindle – WAGTV
  • 1958 – Global Warming – It’s NOT newly known
  • Al Gore: New thinking on the climate crisis – April, 2008
  • Global Warming 101 – National Geographic
  • The American Denial of Global Warming – Naomi Oreskes.
  • Amount of Arctic Sea Ice is Droping Each Decade (2008.09.17)
  • Arctic Sea Sea Ice Predicted to be Gone by Summer 2008
  • Give Me a Break: Global Warming – 20/20, August 6, 2008
  • CBC – Global Warming Doomsday Called Off – April 21, 2007
  • Exposed – The Climate of Fear – CNN
  •  

    Web Sites and Blogs

    Blogs

    Web Sites

    Wikipedia

    Work, papers, letters, and other reference material

    { 0 comments }