Saturday 26th of May 2018

driving off a cliff at 120 miles an hour is "not as bad as we thought"...even on a bicycle...

cliffface

An article in a "denialist publication" by some half-learned idiots trying to pass as half-intelligent scientists/mathematicians has irked me. Their work is often used by denialists to tell us the global warming science is bunkum:


Another study has "substantially lower[ed]" the U.N.'s forecasts of potential temperature increases, the authors of the study concluding that climate change is "not as bad as we thought." The findings follow another study published in January that "all but rules out" both "very high climate sensitivities" as well as the lower end predictions of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The new study, conducted by climatologist Judith Curry and mathematician Nick Lewis and published in the American Meteorological Society's "Journal of Climate" on April 23, downgrades the predicted global temperature increases by 30-45% compared to the forecasts of the IPCC.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/29865/new-study-global-warming-not-bad-we-thought-james-barrett?

Brilliant BULLSHIT! Actually it’s pathetic. And by the way a "Meteorological Journal" is a bit related to global warming, like a car mechanic manual is related to brain surgery.

Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modelling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee. As of 2017, she has retired from academia.

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

Regarding climate change, she thinks that the IPCC reports typically neglect what she calls the "Uncertainty Monster" in projecting future climate trends, which she calls a "wicked problem." Curry also hosts a popular science blog in which she writes on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

So Curry writes with a “mathematician” who is a "semi" full-blown denialist. 
Nic Lewis has a math degree from Cambridge and after a career in finance he retired to take up climate change scepticism. Nic Lewis is not a complete climate change denial-denialist: https://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/nic-lewis/

----------------------------

This is what both of them write:

"Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived based on the best estimates and uncertainty ranges for forcing provided in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Scientific Report (AR5). 
Recent revisions to greenhouse gas forcing and post-1990 ozone and aerosol forcing estimates are incorporated and the forcing data extended from 2011 to 2016. 
Reflecting recent evidence against strong aerosol forcing, its AR5 uncertainty lower bound is increased slightly. Using a 1869–1882 base period and a 2007−2016 final period, which are well-matched for volcanic activity and influence from internal variability, medians are derived for ECS of 1.50 K (5−95%: 1.05−2.45 K) and for TCR of 1.20 K (5−95%: 0.9−1.7 K). 
These estimates both have much lower upper bounds than those from a predecessor study using AR5 data ending in 2011. Using infilled, globally-complete temperature data gives slightly higher estimates; a median of 1.66 K for ECS (5−95%: 1.15−2.7 K) and 1.33 K for TCR (5−95%:1.0−1.90 K). 
These ECS estimates reflect climate feedbacks over the historical period, assumed time-invariant. Allowing for possible time-varying climate feedbacks increases the median ECS estimate to 1.76 K (5−95%: 1.2−3.1 K), using infilled temperature data. 
Possible biases from non-unit forcing efficacy, temperature estimation issues and variability in sea-surface temperature change patterns are examined and found to be minor when using globally-complete temperature data. These results imply that high ECS and TCR values derived from a majority of CMIP5 climate models are inconsistent with observed warming during the historical period."
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1

A LOT OF flexible CRAPSHIT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED HERE.


According to Snopes, "DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified." Among the falsehoods published on the Daily Wire include “leftists” digging up Confederate graves, Democratic congresspeople refusing to stand for a fallen Navy SEAL’s widow, and Harvard University holding segregated commencement ceremonies.

FactCheck.Org found that the Daily Wire was the source of a false story which credited Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson with finding over $500 billion in accounting errors made by the Obama administration. According to FactCheck.Org found that the errors were discovered and published by HUD’s independent inspector general before Carson became secretary.

The Daily Wire has published a number of articles which cast doubt that climate change is occurring and that humans contribute to climate change. Experts have described the articles as inaccurate and misleading.

———————

FROM THE IPCC:
The decision to prepare a Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) was taken by the members of the IPCC at its 28th Session (09-10 April 2008, Budapest, Hungary). Following the election of the new IPCC Bureau at the 29th Session of the IPCC (31 August - 04 September 2008, Geneva, Switzerland) and discussions about future IPCC activities at the 30th Session of the IPCC (21-23 April 2009, Antalya, Turkey), a Scoping Meeting was held (13-17 July 2009, Venice, Italy) to develop the scope and outline of the AR5. The resulting outlines for the three Working Group contributions to the AR5 were approved by the 31st Session of the IPCC in Bali (26-29 October 2009).

--------------------
From the web:
Frequency distribution of climate sensitivity, based on model simulations.[1] Few of the simulations result in less than 2 °C of warming—near the low end of estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC).[1] Some simulations result in significantly more than the 4 °C, which is at the high end of the IPCC estimates.[1] This pattern (statisticians call it a "right-skewed distribution") suggests that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.[1]

-------------------

Slow climate feedbacks, especially changes of ice sheet size and atmospheric CO2, amplify the total Earth system sensitivity by an amount that depends on the time scale considered.[3]Although climate sensitivity is usually used in the context of radiative forcing by carbon dioxide (CO2), it is thought of as a general property of the climate system: the change in surface air temperature (ΔTs) following a unit change in radiative forcing (RF), and thus is expressed in units of °C/(W/m2). For this to be useful, the measure must be independent of the nature of the forcing (e.g. from greenhouse gases or solar variation); to first order this is indeed found to be so[citation needed].

——————————



FROM GUS:
The modelling of “global warming” is a difficult one, yet Arrhenius did it with pen and paper 120 years ago with an astonishing 80 per cent accuracy. The problem with the arguments has been trying to account for all the factors, many of which are contradictory "feedback mechanisms" appearing to cancel each other. But the problem is similar with a plane taking off on a runway (or a car approaching a cliff edge at 120 miles an hour). At which point do we pull on the brakes or take off, knowing the plane is on fire. No matter how hopeful we can be, by knowing we still have 1,640 metres of runway in front of us, our speed is too fast to stop within this fast diminishing range.
This is the point of no-return so well-known to pilots. Depending on the plane, the distance left on the runway and the point of take-off is always a delicate balance that, on most take-offs, is automatic and based on the parameters available, mostly airspeed. Should the plane develop mechanical failure, before this crucial point, take-off can be aborted. Should this happens AFTER this crucial point, then a catastrophe is unavoidable. Plane manufacturers make sure pilots are aware of this window of “unavoidability”… The reason for mechanical failure can be many, from bird strikes to exploding tyres, or cargo doors falling off and engine failure.
For global warming, "mechanical failure” in the atmosphere is the EXTRA CO2 added by human consumption of fossil fuels. The "Uncertainty Monster" in projecting future climate trends, which Curry calls a "wicked problem” is a furphy. At this stage we know we have a MAJOR problem. This EXTRA CO2 is going to warm up the atmosphere over a certain length of time. 50 years? 100 years? 150 years? and by how much?
Our planning decisions, economics and politics, in the immediacy are to know and act upon the length of a longer or shorter runway, while looking at the dials and about to crash. How much warming “can we afford” as Arrhenius calculated (<2 degrees Celsius) — and when are we going to hit the crucial point of no return?
We passed this point a long time ago in human terms: mid-June 1996 as calculated by Gus on a napkin. Our choice now is do we carry on pushing the engines to take off while the plane is on fire, like the last flight of the Concorde or do we stop all engines — knowing that braking will blow more tyres and reversing the engine-thrusts at this speed might destroy the plane — while still not avoiding the rough, the forest or the pond ahead. Wicked choice? sure. Uncertainty Monster? no. Whether global warming is 45 per cent less or not than previously calculated at this stage, the point of no return has been crossed. Our choice is to decide which is the best way and when we crash — because crash we will.

I will add here that all the prognosis by Curry and Lewis are way below reality despite their fancy calculus, which could bamboozle a five year old and themselves — but are totally ridiculous to the serious scientist and mathematician.


The simplest method for calculating full-blown global warming is to know the natural variability limits of global climates. 
180 ppms of CO2 for ice ages (5 to 7 degrees Celsius planet average)
300 ppms of CO2 for warm ages (15 degrees Celsius planet average).

Simple enough so far?

You know that a difference of 120 ppms of CO2 increases planet average temperature by 7 to 10 degrees Celsius (120 years ago, Arrhenius calculated a difference of 6 degrees Celsius)

Now, add more than 100 ppms of CO2 to this relationship (by burning fossil fuels, we already have gone beyond this EXTRA CO2 amount). Do your own sums. Don’t be shy. You can average it, mean it, proportion it, the result is not pretty, even at the lower end of the scale after having fiddled with "feedback mechanisms".

This is where the "Monster of Uncertainty" comes in. The melting of the North Pole ice is retarding the major effect of warming. Same with the melting of Antarctica which absorbs a lot of energy while still remaining as ice (warmer ice nonetheless). But the methane emissions are adding to the warming. At this stage the calculations by Curry and Lewis are also skewed for being TIME SHY.

Timeframe here is important. What could presently be a "lower increase of global warming” according to them, will BECOME in the not too distant future “a much higher increase in global warming” according to proper calculations.

At which point do we apply the brakes? When we are on the edge of the cliff?

Gus Leonisky
You local responsible driver.

an idiot for a dad...

This was first published 5 Sep 2013 

 

An open letter to Bridget Abbott, Frances Abbott and (Louise Abbott)...

Dear Bridget, Frances and (Louise) Abbott... (Louise does not appear in the pictures, possible because she is under-aged or rebellious, unlike the other two sisters. I don't know.)

On a day like today (26 degrees Celsius in Sydney — 6 degrees Celsius above monthly average, and 7.3 degrees Celsius above the average for the 5th of September) I would not blame you if you felt it would be better to lie on the sand at Whale Beach rather than go with dad, but no matter what, you should still take note of Uncle Gus...

When you are Mrs Bridget Minchin, Mrs Frances Heffernan and Mrs Louise Abetz — grandmothers to two and a half kids each — it will be time to reflect and come clean about "the climate". 

But you may not... One good soul would argue that I should not involve you in this, BUT YOU HAVE chosen to INVOLVE YOURSELVES in your dad's distressful and distasteful business, so I have no choice but to tell you about the warming planet.

Like many ignorant Liberals (CONservatives) idiots, 50 years from now, you may have built a moat around your comforts in your little head, to avoid any demanding introspection such as asking questions that are a pathway to unhappiness and distress about whatever you are doing or have done.

Actually it is time to reflect today, but the euphoria of your dad becoming prime Minister of this fair country would be overwhelming and intoxicating like summer wine... 

Take note: Your dad is not a lovely dag but a dangerous idiotic dork.

And like the kids and grand-kids of Himmler, Goebbels, Georing and other Nazi officials, you will be ashamed of your dad — or should be... — and of having been part of his advancement towards his stupid grand plans, akin to those of the most despicable despots.

50 years from now, you would be grand-mothers and would have to confess to your grand-kids that your dad's non-belief in global warming was a total crock... And that unfortunately you were part of it... But you might still argue that his solution to this problem he did not believe in, was as good as any others. Not on your Nelly. Not true... Thus in your heart, if you have any, you would have to feel the heat — the relentless heat of winters like summers... and of summers like hell. But you may not, because your air conditioning unit would be working its butt off, in your bunker...

This is what's in store, REALLY HOT. Up to 15 degrees Celsius warmer than today. Year round, by 2250. Not far, considering that Shakespeare lived about 400 years back.

GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A FALLACY and it's much faster than scientists are telling us... We are on the way to extremes and to devastation due to climatic conditions relentlessly changing from bad to worse and to warmer — as more CO2 is released into the atmosphere by HUMANS burning fossil fuels. I beg you on my knees to understand this reality.

The future of your grand children is not in your dad's hands, now. That future is in yours and if you don't understand now what Gus means (Gus will be long dead by then), I hope you do, preferably in the near future and start to fight your dad for what he is — a real danger to this planet.

Realise that many people will die from "global warming" whether you believe in it or not... Far more people will die than Hitler, Hirohito or the Americans ever killed, with their massive armies...

This is not a joke.

Your call.

Note: I would not write this letter if you did not parade like peahens either side of this dangerous man that, by chance of genetics, happens to be your dad.

THE SITUATION IS FAR MORE SERIOUS THAN FELT...


Repeat FROM GUS:


The modelling of “global warming” is a difficult one, yet Arrhenius did it with pen and paper 120 years ago with an astonishing 80 per cent accuracy. The problem with the arguments has been trying to account for all the factors, many of which are contradictory "feedback mechanisms" appearing to cancel each other. But the problem is similar with a plane taking off on a runway (or a car approaching a cliff edge at 120 miles an hour). At which point do we pull on the brakes or take off, knowing the plane is on fire. No matter how hopeful we can be, by knowing we still have 1,640 metres of runway in front of us, our speed is too fast to stop within this fast diminishing range. 

This is the point of no-return so well-known to pilots. Depending on the plane, the distance left on the runway and the point of take-off is always a delicate balance that, on most take-offs, is automatic and based on the parameters available, mostly airspeed. Should the plane develop mechanical failure, before this crucial point, take-off can be aborted. Should this happens AFTER this crucial point, then a catastrophe is unavoidable. Plane manufacturers make sure pilots are aware of this window of “unavoidability”… The reason for mechanical failure can be many, from bird strikes to exploding tyres, or cargo doors falling off and engine failure.

For global warming, "mechanical failure” in the atmosphere is the EXTRA CO2 added by human consumption of fossil fuels. The "Uncertainty Monster" in projecting future climate trends, which Curry calls a "wicked problem” is a furphy. At this stage we know we have a MAJOR problem. This EXTRA CO2 is going to warm up the atmosphere over a certain length of time. 50 years? 100 years? 150 years? and by how much?

Our planning decisions, economics and politics, in the immediacy are to know and act upon the length of a longer or shorter runway, while looking at the dials and about to crash. How much warming “can we afford” as Arrhenius calculated (<2 degrees Celsius) — and when are we going to hit the crucial point of no return? 

We passed this point a long time ago in human terms: mid-June 1996 as calculated by Gus on a napkin. Our choice now is do we carry on pushing the engines to take off while the plane is on fire, like the last flight of the Concorde or do we stop all engines — knowing that breaking will blow more tyres and reversing the engine-thrusts at this speed might destroy the plane — while still not avoiding the rough, the forest or the pond ahead. Wicked choice? sure. Uncertainty Monster? no. Whether global warming is 45 per cent less or not than previously calculated at this stage, the point of no return has been crossed. Our choice is to decide which is the best way and when we crash — because crash we will.

I will add here that all the prognosis by Curry and Lewis are way below reality despite their fancy calculus, which could bamboozle a five year old and themselves — but are totally ridiculous to the serious scientist and mathematician.

The simplest method for calculating full-blown global warming is to know the natural variability limits of global climates. 

180 ppms of CO2 for ice ages (5 to 7 degrees Celsius planet average)
300 ppms of CO2 for warm ages (15 degrees Celsius planet average).

Simple enough so far?

You know that a difference of 120 ppms of CO2 increases planet average temperature by 7 to 10 degrees Celsius (120 years ago, Arrhenius calculated a difference of 6 degrees Celsius)

Now, add more than 100 ppms of CO2 to this relationship (by burning fossil fuels, we already have gone beyond this EXTRA CO2 amount). Do your own sums. Don’t be shy. You can average it, mean it, proportion it, the result is not pretty, even at the lower end of the scale after having fiddled with "feedback mechanisms".

This is where the "Monster of Uncertainty" comes in. The melting of the North Pole ice is retarding the major effect of warming. Same with the melting of Antarctica which absorbs a lot of energy while still remaining as ice (warmer ice nonetheless). But the methane emissions are adding to the warming. At this stage the calculations by Curry and Lewis are also skewed for being TIME SHY

Timeframe here is important. What could presently be a "lower increase of global warming” according to them, will BECOME in the not too distant future “a much higher increase in global warming” according to proper calculations

At which point do we apply the brakes? When we are on the edge of the cliff?

Gus Leonisky
You local responsible driver.

burn, baby burn...

Here’s something that wasn’t supposed to happen in this era of climate change consciousness: fossil fuel use is rising—soaring, in fact.

Oil prices are up as demand surges, and so oil companies are accelerating new exploration. As we all know, the fracking revolution, which has had to overcome heavy political opposition, has turned the United States into its own Saudi Arabia, erasing what was once quaintly known as the “energy crisis.” 

In the meantime, oil company profits are up, and so are their stock prices; investors are, in a word, pumped. As a CNBC headline blared on May 9: “Wall Street is back on the oil bandwagon.” The article quoted one CEO as saying: “The demand growth is soaking up the excess supply. People weren’t expecting the demand growth to be so robust.”

Yet while demand for oil has indeed been robust, the fact is that demand over the last half century has never stopped growing. And it’s expected to continue rising steadily for the foreseeable future.

By the way, the same is true of other fossil fuels. Natural gas consumption is up, too. Even worldwide annual coal consumption, while down in the last few years, is more than double what it was two decades ago.

So what’s going on? If we’re supposed to be transcending fossil fuels, as many experts say we must do for the sake of the climate, then why are we burning more of them than ever before? 

The answer is that we suffer from a kind of global cognitive dissonance. The political-media-chattering complex is in a bubble of its own making, telling itself what it wants to hear. Out in the real world, where energy is needed to make the planet’s economy hum, the situation is different. 

We might consider, too, the case of property owners in coastal areas who are voting with their own money. Many experts insist that Miami—and indeed much of Florida—will soon be inundated by rising sea levels, and yet the locals, living their lives, don’t seem so concerned.

read more:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/americas-fossil-fuel-boo...

 

The sooner we crash, the sooner we...  what was it again? Have a face lift in a retirement village? Read from top. Is this designed to prop up the Russian economy?...

ignoramuses fill university dumb center...

Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) is a hugely influential policy group filled with heavy hitters from politics and the oil industry. While the center's home page describes it as “an independent, interdisciplinary, and nonpartisan platform,” its track record shows that CGEP consistently supports the same policies favored by the fossil fuel industry. 

And one of its latest moves — hiring former Trump energy advisor and fossil fuel defender George “David” Banks as an expert on “international climate policy” — shows that trend will continue.

Under Trump, Banks served as White House Special Assistant for International Energy and Environment, which included publicly representing the administration at international climate change negotiations. At last November's United Nations climate talks in Bonn, Germany, that meant moderating the U.S.'s lone event, a controversial panel promoting coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy — and defending President Trump's infamous “climate change is a Chinese hoax” tweet.

 

Read more:

https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/22/columbia-university-trump-george-d...