Posts Made By: Hugh Bartlett

According to a recent summary of 2009 Arctic summer sea ice conditions by the University of Colorado at Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center.

"We've preserved a fair amount of first-year ice and second-year ice after this summer compared to the past couple of years," said NSIDC scientist Walt Meier of CU-Boulder's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. "If this ice remains in the Arctic thorough the winter, it will thicken, which gives some hope of stabilizing the ice cover over the next few years. However, the ice is still much younger and thinner than it was in the 1980s, leaving it vulnerable to melt during the summer."

One of the disasters portended by the alarmist community is how global warming is going to flood all of Florida, etc. Here is some scientific reality to the scare:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MLK2.pdf

I ran across this summary of what many believe about AGW, which I borrowed from Dr. Roy Spencer's blog (10/24/09). His qualifications are listed after the quote:

"About.com describes an “urban legend” as an apocryphal (of questionable authenticity), secondhand story, told as true and just plausible enough to be believed, about some horrific…series of events….it’s likely to be framed as a cautionary tale. Whether factual or not, an urban legend is meant to be believed. In lieu of evidence, however, the teller of an urban legend is apt to rely on skillful storytelling and reference to putatively trustworthy sources.

I contend that the belief in human-caused global warming as a dangerous event, either now or in the future, has most of the characteristics of an urban legend. Like other urban legends, it is based upon an element of truth. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose concentration in the atmosphere is increasing, and since greenhouse gases warm the lower atmosphere, more CO2 can be expected, at least theoretically, to result in some level of warming.

But skillful storytelling has elevated the danger from a theoretical one to one of near-certainty. The actual scientific basis for the plausible hypothesis that humans could be responsible for most recent warming is contained in the cautious scientific language of many scientific papers. Unfortunately, most of the uncertainties and caveats are then minimized with artfully designed prose contained in the Summary for Policymakers (SP) portion of the report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This Summary was clearly meant to instill maximum alarm from a minimum amount of direct evidence.

...

Unfortunately, just as we are irresistibly drawn to disasters – either real ones on the evening news, or ones we pay to watch in movie theaters – the urban legend of a climate crisis will persist, being believed by those whose politics and worldviews depend upon it. Only when they finally realize what a new treaty will cost them in loss of freedoms and standard of living will those who oppose our continuing use of carbon-based energy begin to lose their religion."

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

Read more at http://www.drroyspencer.com

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/russian_scientist_we_should_fear_a_deep_temperature_drop_not_catastrophic_g/

Okay, new link. The thing I like about the summary of the article is the graphs. Clearly, the solar cycle contributed to global temperature highs in the 1998-2005 period around the 2001 solar maximum, and is influencing the current lack of warming. Long term, yes we are warming, but we have been since 1850, so CO2's role is less than clear.

Conclusion: the science is not settled and the debate is not over.

I know weather is not climate. And just because one month (October 2009) was the 3rd coldest on record in the contiguous US, does not mean anything, BUT look at the graph from 1900 to the present. I challenge anyone to say there has been any warming in these parts over that time period.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/11/ncdc-october-usa-temperatures-3rd-coldest-on-record-wettest-ever-on-record/#more-12756

Here is an interesting paper that points to another source for warming other than CO2:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Volcanoes_and_CO2_and_Global_Temperatures.pdf

So what does the science say when actual experiments are done on vegetation? An article in the March 2010 issue of Scientific American reports these findings:

Higher CO2 concentrations can enhance yields for commodities such as wheat, rice, barley, soybeans, and cotton, but the downside is that it also promotes weeds and exotic species. On the whole, I'd rate that as a strongly positive impact.

Another result is that trees and shrubs could replace grasslands. The article seems to make the judgmental call that this is a bad change, but why is forest habitat worse than that of grasslands? Are not forests a more diverse habitat than grasslands? So that would also be positive, or at least neutral.

Finally, higher CO2 will produce more pollen, triggering more allergies (picky, picky, picky....).

Don't get me wrong, I am all for conserving non-renewable resources and reducing pollution, but demonizing CO2 seems like a specious argument.

I feel the same way about warming, but that is another post.

Here's a fascinating one hour "debate" between MIT Professor Richard Lindzen and the IPCC author Hadi Dowlatabadi who is Canada research chair and professor in Applied Mathematics and Global Change at the University of British Columbia. It is amazing how they agree with each other almost all of the time. More like a love-fest than a debate!

http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.woa?videoid?71356252001

I ran across this prayer read at a Bar Mitzvah last weekend, and it had to have been written by an astrophysicist. It is in my signature line below.

Scientific American Poll: 81% think the IPCC is Corrupt, with Group-think & Political Agenda

'Scientific' American may regret taking their recent opinion poll on the state of Climate Science given the eye-opening results cast by their "scientifically literate" readership. With a total of 5190 respondents, a consensus of 81.3% think the IPCC is "a corrupt organization, prone to group-think, with a political agenda" and 75% think climate change is caused by solar variation or natural processes vs. 21% who think it is due to greenhouse gases from human activity.

65% think we should do nothing about climate change since "we are powerless to stop it," and the same percentage think science should stay out of the political process. When asked "How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?" 76.7% said "nothing."

Poll results:

Climate of Change?

1. Should climate scientists discuss scientific uncertainty in mainstream forums?

No, that would play into the hands of the fossil-fuel lobby. 3.0% 157
Yes, it would help engage the citizenry. 90.1% 4,673
Maybe, but only via serious venues like PBS's the NewsHour and The New York Times. 6.9% 358
answered question 5,188
skipped question 2

2. Judith Curry is:

a peacemaker. 69.1% 3,585
a dupe. 7.6% 392
both. 4.3% 224
I've never heard of her. 19.0% 987
answered question 5,188
skipped question 2

3. What is causing climate change?

greenhouse gases from human activity 30.9% 1,602
solar variation 33.1% 1,718
natural processes 75.8% 3,934
There is no climate change. 6.2% 320
answered question 5,188
skipped question 2

4. The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is:

an effective group of government representatives, scientists and other experts. 18.0% 932
a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda. 81.3% 4,220
something to do with Internet protocols. 0.7% 36
answered question 5,188
skipped question 2

5. What should we do about climate change?

Nothing, we are powerless to stop it. 65.4% 3,394
Use more technology (geoengineering, carbon capture and storage). 16.7% 865
Use less technology (cars, intensive agriculture). 5.8% 303
Switch to carbon-free energy sources as much as possible and adapt to changes already underway. 29.5% 1,528
answered question 5,188
skipped question 2

6. What is "climate sensitivity"?

the degree to which global temperature responds to concentrations of greenhouse gases 32.6% 1,692
an unknown variable that climate scientists still do not understand 52.2% 2,708
the phrase on which the fate of human civilization hangs 0.6% 30
all of the above 14.6% 758
answered question 5,188
skipped question 2

7. Which policy options do you support?

a carbon tax 15.1% 781
cap and trade (a price on carbon via an overall limit on emissions paired with some form of market for such pollution permits) 8.5% 441
increased government funding of energy-related technology research and development 38.8% 2,015
cap and dividend, in which the proceeds of auctioning pollution permits are rebated to taxpayers 6.6% 343
keeping science out of the political process 65.1% 3,375
answered question 5,188
skipped question 2

8. How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?

a 50 percent increase in electricity bills 3.8% 195
a doubling of gasoline prices 5.5% 286
nothing 76.7% 3,981
whatever it takes 14.0% 726
answered question 5,188
skipped question 2