Happycamper's House of Denial brought to you by ExxonMobil

[stickstones]

two sentence attacks are all this deserves. honestly, why bother responding to drivel such as this?:

Just to let everyone know, the second wave of coldness is hitting. (As I said it would in Feb) Exteme cold and snow in UK. Poland have had snow above their knees this time my polish employee Beata told me.

as many people have probably heard before, climate and weather are two different things. i'm not interested in teaching remedial basic science. so have at it, i'm staying out of it from now on. if you care to really discuss this without a barrage of nonsense contact me in private.

You're missing camper's point. The IPCC said it is going to be record hot but instead it is record cold. Camper is not saying that a cold snap proves global warming to be false. He is showing that the IPCC is more motivated by politics than science.

However, your response is what I expected. You would be much better suited as a journalist since you are adept at slinging mud but not capable or willing to produce any science. You can't even link to a journal? Or link to a real study and see if camper digs into it? Some scientist.

It took twenty plus pages of this thread to finally get a distinction between science and politics on the issue. We've beat the politics ad nauseum...now how about some real science?

 

[Happycamper]

When Oz had a record high since 190somthing the other week it was headline news. This is apparently more evidence of global warming. (Yet the cold is also supposed to be evidence of warming as well) But this is just weather, even if the Earth was on a global cooling cycle (which on the short term since 2002 it has been) , models show record highs would still hit.

I mean they can't have it both ways.

 

[Happycamper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AutxFgxTshM

When life seemed so much simpler, before i ever heard the word 'global warming'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmWxUGStTj4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0c__lfwf94

 

[Happycamper]

Another paper just out, re-writing the science behind what is melting the himalayan glaciers.:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/26593/2009/acpd-9-26593-2009.html

The fact that glaciers in the Himalayan mountains are thinning is not disputed. However, few researchers have attempted to rigorously examine and quantify the causes. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientist Surabi Menon set out to isolate the impacts of the most commonly blamed culpritgreenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxidefrom other particles in the air that may be causing the melting. Menon and her collaborators found that airborne black carbon aerosols, or soot, from India is a major contributor to the decline in snow and ice cover on the glaciers.

Our simulations showed greenhouse gases alone are not nearly enough to be responsible for the snow melt, says Menon, a physicist and staff scientist in Berkeley Labs Environmental Energy Technologies Division. Most of the change in snow and ice coverabout 90 percentis from aerosols. Black carbon alone contributes at least 30 percent of this sum.

Menon and her collaborators used two sets of aerosol inventories by Indian researchers to run their simulations; their results were published online in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

The actual contribution of black carbon, emitted largely as a result of burning fossil fuels and biomass, may be even higher than 30 percent because the inventories report less black carbon than what has been measured by observations at several stations in India. (However, these observations are too incomplete to be used in climate models.) We may be underestimating the amount of black carbon by as much as a factor of four, she says.

The findings are significant because they point to a simple way to make a swift impact on the snow melt. Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for 100 years, but black carbon doesnt stay in the atmosphere for more than a few weeks, so the effects of controlling black carbon are much faster, Menon says. If you control black carbon now, youre going to see an immediate effect.


Random comment, but I think it makes a good point.

vibenna (22:54:32) :

So lets be clear the Himalayan glaciers are thinning, with potentially dangerous consequences. Yes we must be clear about the causes, and the science, but lets not lose sight of the fact that they are thinning.

REPLY: And lets not lose sight of the fact that:

1) Something can be done about black soot and aersols from India, with positive benefits all around
2) CO2 is not the main driver
3) The threat of melt has been wildly and irresponsibly exaggerated by the IPCC for the purposes of getting grants
4) The projection for melt that is realistic is the year 2350or beyond, Plenty of time to do something about #1

 

[Happycamper]

And I think I just found another of the recent peer reviewed reports I was trying to find the other day.

Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change

Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth's ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.

In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs - compounds once widely used as refrigerants - and cosmic rays - energy particles originating in outer space - are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.

http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.12.002

I'm still trying to find the peer reviewed study (I heard it was in Nature) that is about co2 levels 4 times as high as industrial times during an ice age. If anyone come across it please post it.

These peer reviewed papers are mounting up.

Uh-oh another one:

Two German physicists have written a paper debunking the "theory" of the greenhouse gas effect by demonstrating how it violates basic laws of physics. Their paper, Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics, was published last year in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Modern Physics.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

 

[stickstones]

sweet camper! I'll dig into some of this later.

 

[Happycamper]

Detectives question climate change scientist over email leaksUniversity of East Anglia scientist Paul Dennis denies leaking material, but links to climate change sceptics in US drew him to attention of the investigators

Dennis's own research, which dates fluctuating temperatures in ice cores stretching back thousands of years, does not support the more catastrophic current predictions of runaway global warming

University sources say the head of department, Professor Jacquie Burgess, received a letter from Dennis at the height of the email uproar, calling for more open release of data. He appears to have disapproved of the way Jones resisted FoI requests

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/04/climate-change-email-hacking-leaks

 

[Happycamper]

Another paper just out again undermining co2 having such an important role in temperature changes.
New paper: Interglacials, Milankovitch Cycles and Carbon Dioxide http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0597

Introduction:

The existing understanding of interglacial periods is that they are initiated by Milankovitch cycles enhanced by rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. During interglacials, global temperature is also believed to be primarily controlled by carbon dioxide concentrations, modulated by internal processes such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation. Recent work challenges the fundamental basis of these conceptions

Summary:

It has been shown above that low altitude cloud cover closely follows cosmic ray flux; that the galactic cosmic ray flux has the periodicities of the glacial/interglacial cycles; that a decrease in galactic cosmic ray flux was coincident with Termination II [the warming that initiated the Eemian, the last interglacial] ; and that the most likely initiator for Termination II was a consequent decrease in Earths albedo.
The temperature of past interglacials was higher than today most likely as a consequence of a lower global albedo due to a decrease in galactic cosmic ray flux reaching the Earths atmosphere. In addition, the galactic cosmic ray intensity exhibits a 100 kyr periodicity over the last 200 kyr that is in phase with the glacial terminations of this period. Carbon dioxide appears to play a very limited role in setting interglacial temperature.

 

[Happycamper]

Is this normal for so many peer reviewed papers to be published, that seem to undermine some really fundemental areas of climate change science?

 

[stickstones]

I don't know, but it is a young and developing science. We'll probably be updating our understanding of climate on a regular basis.

 

[Happycamper]

The number of British people who are sceptical about climate change is rising, a poll for BBC News suggests.

The Populus poll of 1,001 adults found 25% did not think global warming was happening, a rise of 8% since a similar poll was conducted in November.

The percentage of respondents who said climate change was a reality had fallen from 83% in November to 75% this month.

And only 26% of those asked believed climate change was happening and "now established as largely man-made".

The findings are based on interviews carried out on 3-4 February.

In November 2009, a similar poll by Populus - commissioned by the Times newspaper - showed that 41% agreed that climate change was happening and it was largely the result of human activities.


"It is very unusual indeed to see such a dramatic shift in opinion in such a short period," Populus managing director Michael Simmonds told BBC News.

"The British public are sceptical about man's contribution to climate change - and becoming more so," he added.

"More people are now doubters than firm believers."
'Exaggerated risks'

Of the 75% of respondents who agreed that climate change was happening, one-in-three people felt that the potential consequences of living in a warming world had been exaggerated, up from one-in-five people in November.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/8500443.stm

 

[Happycamper]

Flashback to 2007 SST to plunge again?

Dr. Roy Spencer reported that January, 2010 was the warmest on record at +0.72C anomaly after a relatively cool +0.28 in December. Dr. Spencer is one of the most trustworthy players in climate science and clearly does not have a warming agenda. So is earths climate warming out of control after all?

To answer this question, it is worth looking back at the second warmest January which came in 2007. Like 2010, January, 2007 also took a big jump up from the previous month and was at the peak of an El Nino. The warm weather led the Met Office and to forecast a record warm year. Hansen also speculated about the possibility of a Super El Nino.
4 January 2007
2007 forecast to be the warmest year yet
2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, say climate-change experts at the Met Office. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070104.html
But the Met Office was wrong in 2007. Instead of breaking the temperature record, temperatures plummeted nearly 0.8C to below normal after El Nino quickly faded as you can see in the graph below

One big difference between January, 2007 and January, 2010 is that this time around, land temperatures are not so warm. Many parts of the planet have been reporting near record cold temperatures, in particular Europe, Siberia, Antarctica and the US.

So what is going on in 2010? Bob Tisdale has reported that this is the warmest El Nino since 1998

The ocean makes up 2/3 of the planet and dominates the global temperature average. Bob reports that NINO3.4 SST anomalies peaked about five weeks ago and theyve been dropping like a stone so we may be in for a repeat of 2007. The Met Office is doing their part to make it happen.

Met Office : Climate could warm to record levels in 2010
10 December 2009

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091210b.html

In the meantime, try to stay warm during the record heat''

 

[Happycamper]

Meanwhile back with the Luv Guru on Planet Peanut Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N.s International Panel on Climate Change, said global warming skeptics are like people who see no difference between cancer-causing asbestos and talcum powder


"I hope that they apply it (asbestos) to their faces every day."

India is pulling out of IPCC and is forming their own Panel. Their report is due out in November.

The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it cannot rely on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri.

]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...7590/India-forms-new-climate-change-body.html

 

[Happycamper]

Jackpot!

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

Seems to be an actively updated list.


http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

 

[stickstones]

Some of their links don't work, and those that do require a purchase. They do have summaries of the papers, and here is one I thought interesting, especially since it was done in 2002. Seems his opinion didn't stop the IPCC from steamrolling ahead.


"A dissenting view on global climate change"

Henry R. Linden

Available online 20 May 2002.

Abstract
Global warming alarmists are vastly overstating the risks of climate change, often to further other agendas. The science of global warming simply does not support their claims of impending doomas policy makers would be wise to note.


Henry Linden is Max McGraw Professor of Energy and Power Engineering and Management at Illinois Institute of Technology. Prof. Linden was the founding president of Gas Research Institute, and served in that capacity and as a director from 1977 to 1987. Subsequently, he served as interim president and chief executive officer of I.I.T. Dr. Linden has written and lectured extensively on world energy issues, and has authored and co-authored over 200 publications and 27 patents. He received his Ph.D. in chemical engineering from I.I.T. in 1952.

 

[Happycamper]

There is the odd link that doesnt work, but it seems to be an active site with some of the most recent 2010 already added. I've been reading through quite a few. A lot are blocked by annoying payment screens, but if they are older you have more chance of seeing a bootleg copy somewhere. Once you know the title it makes it a lot easier to find. eg: this is the 2009 paper FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS.


http://74.6.146.127/search/cache?ei...Nk0&icp=1&.intl=uk&sig=eAyfDPb2Y5YO_4_fP5DI3w--

 

[Purple-Days]

Uhh, with 27 patents, he might just have a reason, or 27, for his stance. Not saying he is right or wrong, just that so many of these fellows have reasons for what they are saying, that go beyond 'helping his fellow man'. Maybe not the case with this guy, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Happycamper]

The paper has been through the peer review process afaik.

Although it is in the electricity journal...(edit which actually should not make any difference)


Obviously this is one of my favourites:

ARE CLIMATE MODEL PROJECTIONS RELIABLE ENOUGH FOR CLIMATE POLICY?

The ongoing debate on the global warming and climate change highlights the
possibility of increased incidences of extreme weather events world-wide, as the
earths mean temperature is expected to rise steadily in the next 100 years according
to most climate model projections. The recent IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change) document (IPCC, 2001) categorically states: The globally average
surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4C to 5.8C over the period 1990 to
2100. The projected warming is much larger than the observed changes during the
twentieth century and is very likely to be without precedent during at least the last
10,000 years. The Climate Change document also summarizes various extreme
weather events and their observed and projected changes based on model simulations.
Among the extreme weather events summarized by IPCC are: Higher maximum
temperature and more hot days over nearly all land areas; increase of heat index over
land areas; more intense precipitation events and increased summer continental
drying and associated risk of drought. Besides these weather events, the Climate
change document also makes projections of major climatic events and states: El Nio
events may show small increase in amplitude but its impact in terms of droughts and
floods will increase. The warming associated with increasing greenhouse gas
concentration will cause an increase of Asian summer monsoon variability.A number of recent papers appearing in peer-reviewed literature have questionedmany of the IPCC projections on future warming of the earths surface and associated
increase in extreme weather events. It is important to briefly review these recent
studies and make an assessment of present status of the global warming science. Such
an assessment is essential for developing a Climate Policy consistent with the
emerging view of the state of science. In this viewpoint, some of the climate model
projections are briefly assessed in the light of recent studies.PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE WARMING
Several recent articles have suggested that the future warming of the earths surface
will only be moderate and may not be as catastrophic as projected by IPCC documents

Authors1 Madhav Khandekar is a former Research Scientist from Environment Canada where he worked for about
25 years. Khandekar has been in the fields of atmosphere, ocean and climate for close to 47 years and is
presently on the editorial board of two international Journals, Climate Research (Inter-Research, Germany)
and Natural Hazards (Kluwer, Netherlands). http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=...QCX&icp=1&.intl=uk&sig=dhMAjxZJX3oh3.gTADqf5g--

 

[Happycamper]

And another paper A 2000-YEAR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTION
BASED ON NON-TREERING PROXIES. It's really strange how suddenly the Medievil warm period and little ice age come back.

http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/pdfs/climate-history.pdf

 

[Purple-Days]

I didn't read it, didn't go further than the blurb/bio at the bottom of your post.

BTW isn't the Illinois Institute of Technology heavily involved in wind energy?

Just the skeptic in me. I am suspicious of both sides, all the way to the core.

 

[Happycamper]

"A dissenting view on global climate change"

Henry R. Linden

Available online 20 May 2002.

Abstract
Global warming alarmists are vastly overstating the risks of climate change, often to further other agendas. The science of global warming simply does not support their claims of impending doomas policy makers would be wise to note.

I meant this one (as well) has been peer reviewed and published. Ever paper mentioned so far (in the last few days) has been.

Another one
COOLING OF THE GLOBAL OCEAN SINCE 2003 Craig Loehle, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend.
A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear
component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (0.2) x 1022 Joules per year. The
result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few
years.

 

[Happycamper]

ScienceDaily (Feb. 5, 2010) Glaciologists at the Laboratory for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography (LEGOS -- CNRS/CNES/IRD/Universit Toulouse 3) and their US and Canadian colleagues (1) have shown that previous studies have largely overestimated mass loss from Alaskan glaciers over the past 40 years. Recent data from the SPOT 5 and ASTER satellites have enabled researchers to extensively map mass loss in these glaciers, which contributed 0.12 mm/year to sea-level rise between 1962 and 2006, rather than 0.17 mm/year as previously estimated.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100205130226.htm

 

[Happycamper]

UH-oh- Todays Sunday Times: Africagate

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece
A LEADING British government scientist has warned the United Nations climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility.

Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCCs 2007 benchmark report on global warming.

The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.

This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCCs climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCCs retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035.

The African claims could be even more embarrassing for the IPCC because they appear not only in its report on climate change impacts but, unlike the glaciers claim, are also repeated in its Synthesis Report

 

[Happycamper]

Just to clarify to all people, every paper I have mentioned so far here has been peer reviewed and published. There are loads and loads of published papers that undermine fundamental areas of AGW, the importance of co2 and feedbacks. Plus lots and lots of other issues, like black carbon and aersols been 90% responsible for the melting of the Himalayan Glaciers. There are new papers flooding out every day, one the other day came from Solomon and the other scientists at NOAA. So if you ever hear from the alarmists that we have no peer reviewed? skeptical papers this is simply not to true, and I hope I have shown people this.

 

[Happycamper]

Toronto Sun.

One of the most common questions I get from readers these days is why are the Canadian media ignoring the growing global controversy over the credibility of climate change research and in particular, of the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?

For example, unless you read the international press, especially the mainstream U.K. newspapers such as The Times, Telegraph and Guardian, you probably havent heard much about any of the following controversies in recent days.

(1) John Sauven, director of Greenpeace U.K., until now one of the strongest allies of IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri, has called for Pachauris resignation, saying his judgment is flawed and a new IPCC chairman the most important climate change job in the world is needed to restore public confidence in climatic science.

(2) That the reason for this is increasing controversy over the credibility of the IPCC and Pachauri himself, related to the contents of its last major report released in 2007, including, but by no means limited to, a bogus claim Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 as iconic an image of the potential consequences of man-made global warming in Europe and Asia, as was the (inaccurate) one of polar bears stranded, starving and drowning on melting ice floes in North America. Worse, when the Indian government pointed out the glacier prediction was nonsense, Pachauri accused it of peddling voodoo science, before being forced to admit the IPCC was wrong and had ignored repeated warnings it was wrong.

(3) In the wake of Climategate, the U.K.s Information Commissioners Office concluded officials at the world-famous Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia the most prominent academic institution on which the IPCC relies for its science on man-made global warming broke the law when they refused requests for their raw data under the Freedom of Information Act. They cant be prosecuted due to a technicality the complaint occurred more than six months after the violations.

(4) What had been billed as gold standard, robust and peer reviewed scientific research in the IPCCs 2007 report, released to massive media publicity at the time, has recently been revealed to have relied, in some cases, upon such things as an article in a mountain-climbing magazine, a student dissertation using anecdotal evidence from mountain guides, and the unvetted claims of environmental groups.

(5) The U.K. governments chief scientific advisor, John Beddington, has acknowledged some climate scientists exaggerated the impact of global warming and called for more honesty in explaining to the public the inherent uncertainties of predictions based on computer climate models, adding: I dont think its healthy to dismiss proper skepticism.

(6) Chinas senior climate official, Xie Zhenua, has called for an open attitude towards the alternative view to man-made global warming. That is, that climate change is mainly caused by cyclical trends in nature itself. Considering no global climate deal is possible without China the worlds top greenhouse gas emitter Xies statement that these views should be incorporated into the next major IPCC report in 2014, has huge implications for the future of climate science.

Ive chosen half-a-dozen examples above of controversies now engulfing the IPCC and climate research. I could have mentioned others about the now-disputed basis for IPCC claims regarding the impact of global warming on the Amazon rain forest, hurricanes and floods, and new questions about the reliability of weather station data used to make some IPCC claims.

Plus, theres a growing public perception the IPCC has abandoned its proper role as a dispassionate presenter of scientific research to policy makers, to become just another environmental group preaching warmist hysteria.

None of this disproves anthropogenic global warming, or proves mankinds influence on climate is a scientific hoax. But it illustrates the absurdity of the radical warmists claim the debate is over, the science is settled and we must all immediately take a vow of poverty to save the planet.

Why have Canadian media largely ignored this growing controversy? Perhaps the best answer is embarrassment. Having shilled for warmist hysteria for so long, having dismissed any questioning of man-made climate change orthodoxy as equivalent to Holocaust denial, they dont know how to climb down, or cope with the tidal wave (pardon the pun) of controversy now hitting climate science all over the world.
Thus they remain paralyzed, desperately, frantically, pretending no controversy exists.

Except it does. And its growing.

lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2010/02/05/12763616.html