Business
See other Business Articles
Title: Global warming fraud: the tide begins to turn
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j ... fraud-the-tide-begins-to-turn/
Published: Oct 12, 2010
Author: James Delingpole
Post Date: 2010-10-14 12:39:14 by Capitalist Eric
Keywords: None
Views: 9238
Comments: 19
Funny business, blogging. Sometimes, you put up a post you personally think is genius and no one gives a damn. Other times, you put up a post you imagine is fairly routine – and suddenly the internet goes mental. US physics professor: “Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life” definitely belonged in the latter category. I claim no credit for it. All I did was print, verbatim, a resignation letter written by a distinguished US physics professor Hal Lewis to the American Physical Society. Possibly I helped give it legs by singling out the juiciest quote in the letter and putting it in the headline. That’s all. The true hero of the hour is Professor Lewis for having the courage to stick out his neck and say what so many thousands of other scientists around the world would dearly love to say too: that the global warming industry is a scam and sham. But they can’t because, like all of us, they have to make a living. I’ll leave it to a commenter called Scotchman to explain how it works: No surprise here. Don’t know if any of you are scientists but climate change is a bit of a standing joke in the science community. Want funding for a study of, say, UK swan populations? Sorry old boy, no money. Well, in that case I would like to conduct a study into the effect of climate change on UK swan populations. Certainly, how much would you like? Trouble is it distorts the research. The scientist’s objective is to stay in a job, publish papers and run a research team. Process takes precedent over results, a bit like modern policing and medicine really. And if you wondered how much money is involved, here is Roman Column to explain: The professor wrote: “…the money flood has become the raison d’être …” Let me present some figures below to see why “flood” was not an exaggeration (extract from http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf) “The Money Connection So what is going on here? In time-honored journalistic fashion, follow the money: - The amount of money spent on anti-AGW activity by organizations is around US$2 million per year, primarily from Heartland. - The amount of money spent by pro-AGW organisations on research is about US$3 billion per year, about 1,000 times larger. It mainly comes from big government spending on pro-AGW climate research and on promoting the AGW message, and from the Greens. - Emissions trading by the finance industry was US$120 billion in 2008. This will grow to over US$1 trillion by 2012, and carbon emission permit trading will be the largest “commodity” market in the world—larger than oil, steel, rice, wheat etc. Typically the finance industry might pocket 1% – 5% of the turnover, so even now their financial interest matches the spending on pro-AGW activities and soon it will vastly exceed it. And here’s a physicist Phillip 2, putting Professor Lewis in context: I too had a long career as a physicist and I met Prof Hal Lewis at a conference in 1976 (my career was not as long or as eminent as his). I will never forget the talk he gave after dinner one evening. He spoke for an hour without any notes and was truly inspiring; the room was packed and all there were enthralled. A scientist of honour, honesty and integrity. He is one of the last survivors of the great physicists of the second half of the 20th century. His words of wisdom should be widely disseminated and heeded. “climate scientists” are not scientists in comparison to him. And here’s another REAL scientist (as opposed to a “climate scientist”) – a geologist this time – from NZ called Geodoug: Good article. I am a geologist and a 40yr member of AusIMM and find that they also will not take a stand on this matter. All geologists are aware of climate change episodes in the geological past, frequently of much greater magnitude than that occuring at present. Problem seems to be that pressure is coming to bear on scientific societies world-wide not to speak out. And as the NZ govt has ratified the Kyoto Protocol etc, just 2 weeks ago we were made subject to additional Emissions Trading Scheme taxes on all fuels and energy supplies. It just goes on ………… !! These were characteristic of the unusually high quality of comments this blog attracted from all round the world, often from first time visitors. Hal Lewis – who has now joined the advisory committee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation – struck a chord. As Realfreedom noted: I think this is just the beginning. All credit to Harold Lewis for his honesty and for the having the courage to state his position. It is indeed one of the greatest scams to have been perpetrated by the scientific community, albeit under incessant political pressure. Watch out for the mass exodus – it will only take a few more respected (and brave) figures to open the flood gates. Then it will be highly entertaining to read all the excuses and as they fall over themselves retreating. I know personally many scientists (teachers) who feel under pressure not to decare ther position for fear of reprisals. There will be a good business opportunity in rewriting text books in the not too distant future, as there was when the Piltdown Man hoax was exposed and all the science text books had to be changed accordingly. I think Realfreedom is right. And the people who ought most especially to take notice are our political class. In Britain, we are stuck with a terrifyingly undemocratic situation in which all three of our main political parties are committed to throwing more and more taxpayers money into the Great Climate Change Lie Machine. When taxpayers finally wise up to what’s going on (H/T Nick Mabbs) - and this fantastically damning film on the Wind Farm scam by MEP Godfrey Bloom should help - they are going to be very angry indeed. I don’t think any of us need kid ourselves any more that “going green” was just an insincere pose David Cameron adopted in order to “detoxify” the Tory brand. Make no mistake, the Eton Grocer is as ideologically committed to the eco-fascist doctrine as Chris Huhne, Ed Miliband or, indeed, his avowed idol Al Gore. [Quote from Dave Cameron, overheard: "I had a meeting the other day with Al Gore: God, he knows his stuff!"]. And perhaps more importantly – as Bloom’s film reminds us – it’s vital that Dave’s father-in-law Sir Reginald Sheffield makes as much money as possible by building lots of wind turbines on his estates. It’s no coincidence that by far the most popular comment was this one from Cheshirered: “It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.” Says it all in one paragragh. Are you listening, Mr Cameron, Mr Huhne, Mr Clegg, et al? Or perhaps you ’scrupulously honest’ politicians deliberately choose not to listen, eh? In which case you’re as bad as the rest of ‘em who are in on this outrageous racket. Is it just me, or do I feel a Tea Party style revolution coming on?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Capitalist Eric (#0)
"The APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements," the statement says. "Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the society have a monetary stake in [climate-change] funding." The statement adds that, because relatively few APS members conduct climate-change research, the vast majority of the society's members "derive no personal benefit from such research support". APS press secretary Tawanda Johnson told physicsworld.com that the society released the statement to defend its reputation in the face of the accusations. Gavin Schmidt, a climate physicist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, denies Lewis's claim that research in climate change is congruent with financial gain. "People don't get paid to get results," he says. "Funding pays for postdocs, graduate students and equipment." Schmidt adds the issue raised by Lewis is "a manufactured story" to make people believe there is some discontent in the profession. Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity? It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not. This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one. Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.) , are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic). Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate. For those interested in more details a series of data sets and charts have been assembled below in a 5-step statistical synopsis. Note that the first two steps ignore water vapor. Note: Calculations are expressed to 3 significant digits to reduce rounding errors, not necessarily to indicate statistical precision of the data. All charts were plotted using Lotus 1-2- 3. Caveat: This analysis is intended to provide a simplified comparison of the various man-made and natural greenhouse gases on an equal basis with each other. It does not take into account all of the complicated interactions between atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial systems, a feat which can only be accomplished by better computer models than are currently in use. Greenhouse Gas Concentrations: 1. The following table was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department of Energy (1) summarizing concentrations of the various atmospheric greenhouse gases, and supplemented with information from other sources (2-7). Because some of the concentrations are very small the numbers are stated in parts per billion. DOE chose to NOT show water vapor as a greenhouse gas! But these are the numbers one would use if the goal is to exaggerate human greenhouse contributions: Also, from Table 1 (but not shown on graph): The various greenhouse gases are not equal in their heat-retention properties though, so to remain statistically relevant % concentrations must be changed to % contribution relative to CO2. This is done in Table 2, below, through the use of GWP multipliers for each gas, derived by various researchers. Converting greenhouse gas concentrations 2. Using appropriate corrections for the Global Warming Potential of the respective gases provides the following more meaningful comparison of greenhouse gases, based on the conversion: Also, from Table 2 (but not shown on graph): To properly represent the total relative impacts of Earth's greenhouse gases Table 3 (below) factors in the effect of water vapor on the system. Water vapor overwhelms 3. Table 3, shows what happens when the effect of water vapor is factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect. Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect- - a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water! Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (5). Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under- emphasized or just ignored altogether. Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is "customary" to do so! Comparing natural vs man- made concentrations 4. Of course, even among the remaining 5% of non-water vapor greenhouse gases, humans contribute only a very small part (and human contributions to water vapor are negligible). Constructed from data in Table 1, the charts (below) illustrate graphically how much of each greenhouse gas is natural vs how much is man-made. These allocations are used for the next and final step in this analysis-- total man-made contributions to the greenhouse effect. Units are expressed to 3 significant digits in order to reduce rounding errors for those who wish to walk through the calculations, not to imply numerical precision as there is some variation among various researchers. Putting it all together: 5. To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below. 94.999% 3.502% 0.294% 0.903% 0.025% 99.72 From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart. The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later. Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%. This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system! While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol. Research to Watch Scientists are increasingly recognizing the importance of water vapor in the climate system. Some, like Wallace Broecker, a geochemist at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, suggest that it is such an important factor that much of the global warming in the last 10,000 years may be due to the increasing water vapor concentrations in Earth's atmosphere. His research indicates that air reaching glaciers during the last Ice Age had less than half the water vapor content of today. Such increases in atmospheric moisture during our current interglacial period would have played a far greater role in global warming than carbon dioxide or other minor gases. Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player. The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't! References: 1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000) Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members") 2) "Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2:on the construction of the 'Greenhouse Effect Global Warming' dogma;" Tom V. Segalstad, University of Oslo 3) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002) 4) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases 5) References to 95% contribution of water vapor: a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255- 7264 b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat c. Green house Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change g. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming? h. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate 5) Global Climate Change Student Guide 6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions 7) Methane record and budget Useful conversions: Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
ping.
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Once you understand the global warming is a religion, not something based on 'facts and science' you don't bother with them any longer. Its a waste of time. Never mind global temperatures haven't measurably risen since 1998...its a matter of 'faith' with these idiots.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time. Water Vapour as a positive feedback As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation. When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air to a higher, stabilized level. So the warming from CO2 has an amplified effect. How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000). Empirical observations of water vapour feedback and climate sensitivity The amplifying effect of water vapor has been observed in the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Soden 2001). The cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop. A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is also confirmed by numerous empirical studies examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past (Knutti & Hegerl 2008). Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007). Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system. Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming. Chuckle: Sarah Palin, September 14, 2007. http://gov.state.ak.us/admin-orders/238.html
I don't blindly follow anyone in the Republican Party. And its rather amusing you are quoting a woman you routinely describe as 'stupid'...but when it comes to matters of 'religion' I don't get surprised by such things. Game, set and match.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Sarah Palin, September 14, 2007. Shit. You're quoting the bimbo? Well, at least THIS part is true. Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. [True, 95%, as cited above.] The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006). [At least THIS is true...] Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2. [Pure conjecture, not backed up by any data.] Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. [True.] Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius- Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time. [True.] Water Vapour as a positive feedback As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). [True, because water vaport causes 95% of the "greenhouse effect."] As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation. [Pure True.] When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. [True.] This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air to a higher, stabilized level. So the warming from CO2 has an amplified effect. [True, but fails to mention that the amplification effect is tiny, because the "greenhouse- effect" caused by CO2 is trivial in comparison- 3.618%, as cited above.] How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? [Irrelevant, since the effects due to CO2 are miniscule compared to those of water vapor.] Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. [This may be true using current models, but there is no data to verify such a claim, only conjecture.] Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. [Irrelevant, since CO2 is trivial in comparison. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000). [Pure conjecture.] Empirical observations of water vapour feedback and climate sensitivity The amplifying effect of water vapor has been observed in the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Soden 2001). [True.] The cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop. A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is also confirmed by numerous empirical studies examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past (Knutti & Hegerl 2008). ... Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels. [Models like the infamous "Hockey-Stick" model? Models can be made to show anything you want. And climate modeling is notoriously lacking in accuracy. If a weatherman can't tell you whether it'll be raining in two weeks, what makes you think he can tell you what'll happen in 100 years??? LOL.] Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. [True.] When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming. [A wild stretch of false logic, NOT supported by anything.] You'll have do a LOT better than this. Each paragraph of the article you cited, has a few bits of true information, and then a big fat LIE right in the middle of it. And by "lie," I mean a statement that is supported by... NOTHING. Is this the best you can do?
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
You have provided nothing that disputes the argument that CO2 amplifies water vapor. We're talking about climate, not weather, and you are simply dismissing multiple different monitoring systems that are all reporting the same warming trends (and rising CO2). How about simplyl looking at rising temperatures over the last 30 years? You have offered nothing to dispute the argument that rising CO2 is the biggest factor in that change. Bottom line - you haven't proved that CO2 levels aren't and that CO2 isn't greenhouse gas.
Asphalt.
NASA just reported that Jan-Sept 2010 was the hottest Jan-Sept ever recorded. Good thing there's no warming.
Which means precisely DICK.
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Because it doesn't matter. The effect (as shown by the data I posted) demonstrates that CO2 effects are so small, as to be irrelevant. So, why do you push this (moot) point? So what? The CO2 effects 3% of temperature change. Who really GIVES a shit? SURE I have. Post #6 provides a variety of references at the bottom. Want to try again?
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Yeah, I got a good laugh out of you citing Patrick Michaels, an oil industry funded "scientist" who was told by the state of Virginia to stop calling himself the official climatologist because it wasn't true. Meanwhile, this was just published last week (it has been peer-reviewed): http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/330/6002/356 I get a laugh out of your use of argumentum ad hominem, in a transparent attempt to avoid addressing the data. Grade-school tactics- at best. As to the title of the quote you just posted is absurd on its face. The principle control governing Earth's temperature... is the SUN. As to the logic of the remainder of the quote, it's equally laughable. Water vapor makes up the vast majority of the "greenhouse-effect" - even after condensation is factored in. DO try to stay on track, and address REAL data. Sometimes, being stubborn can be a great source of strength. But as you amply demonstrate, it can be a serious weakness when confronting REAL DATA that contradicts your religion. You would have happily stood with the rest of the Athenians, and condemned Socrates to death, for doing the one thing you can't abide: questioning your religion.
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
In response to Lewis's letter, the APS took the unusual step of issuing a public statement on Tuesday. The society says there is "no truth to Dr Lewis's assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain," adding that the "specific charge that APS as an organization is benefiting financially from climate-change funding is equally false".
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#2. To: go65 (#1)
#3. To: Capitalist Eric (#2)
Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."
Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."
Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..."
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#4. To: go65 (#3)
#5. To: Capitalist Eric (#4)
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#6. To: go65 (#3)
(Edited)
THESE ARE THE FACTS.
Water Vapor Rules
the Greenhouse System
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5) . Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20- fold.
1. Greenhouse gas concentrations 
2. Converting concentrations to contribution 3. Factoring in water vapor 4. Distinguishing natural vs man-made greenhouse gases 5. Putting it all together
Natural vs man-made (anthropogenic)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1) (all concentrations expressed in parts per billion) Pre- industrial baseline Natural additions Man-made additions Total (ppb) Concentration Percent of Total Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 288,000 68,520 11,880 (2) 368,400 99.438% Methane (CH4) 848 577 320 1,745 0.471% Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 285 12 15 312 0.084% Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 25 0 2 27 0.007% Total 289,158 69,109 12,217 370,484 100.00%
The chart at left summarizes the % of greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth's atmosphere from Table 1. This is not a very meaningful view though because 1) the data has not been corrected for the actual Global Warming Potential (GWP) of each gas, and 2) water vapor is ignored. 
Man-made and natural carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises 99.44% of all greenhouse gas concentrations (368,400 / 370,484 )-- (ignoring water vapor). Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor). Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise (12,217 / 370,484) or 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).
to greenhouse effect contribution
(using global warming potential )
adjusted for heat retention characteristics, relative to CO2This table adjusts values in Table 1 to compare greenhouse gases equally with respect to CO2. ( #'s are unit-less) Multiplier (GWP) Pre-industrial baseline(new) Natural additions (new) Man-made additions (new) Tot. Relative Contribution Percent of Total (new) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1 288,000 68,520 11,880 368,400 72.369% Methane (CH4) 21 (3) 17,808 12,117 6,720 36,645 7.199% Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 310 (3) 88,350 3,599 4,771 96,720 19.000% CFC's (and other misc. gases) see data (4) 2,500 0 4,791 7,291 1.432% Total 396,658 84,236 28,162 509,056 100.000%
NOTE: GWP (Global Warming Potential) is used to contrast different greenhouse gases relative to CO2.
Compared to the concentration statistics in Table 1, the GWP comparison in Table 2 illustrates, among other things: Total carbon dioxide (CO2) contributions are reduced to 72.37% of all greenhouse gases (368,400 / 509,056)-- (ignoring water vapor). Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions drop to (11,880 / 509,056) or 2.33% of total of all greenhouse gases, (ignoring water vapor). Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes (28,162 / 509,056) or 5.53% of all greenhouse gas contributions, (ignoring water vapor). Relative to carbon dioxide the other greenhouse gases together comprise about 27.63% of the greenhouse effect (ignoring water vapor) but only about 0.56% of total greenhouse gas concentrations. Put another way, as a group methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), and CFC's and other miscellaneous gases are about 50 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gases.
all other natural and man-made
greenhouse contributions.
(man- made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics Percent of Total Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor Water vapor ----- 95.000% Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618% Methane (CH4) 7.100% 0.360% Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950% CFC's (and other misc. gases) 1.432% 0.072% Total 100.000% 100.000%
As illustrated in this chart of the data in Table 3, the combined greenhouse contributions of CO2, methane, N2O and misc. gases are small compared to water vapor!
of greenhouse gases 
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics % of Greenhouse Effect Water vapor 95.000% 0.001% Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 0.117% Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.066% Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.047% Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072% 0.047% Total 100.00% 0.28%
When greenhouse contributions are listed by source, the relative overwhelming component of the natural greenhouse effect, is readily apparent. Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this. Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant! Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).
" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal
" I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global- change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.
Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC), U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link:
f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link:
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link:
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65
Link:
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD
United Kingdom
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California
Robert Grumbine 1 Gt = 1 billion tons = 1 cu. km. H20 1 Gt Carbon(C) = ~3.67 Gt Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 2.12 Gt C = ~7.8 Gt CO2 = 1ppmv CO2
#7. To: All, Badeye, Wood_Chopper, mininggold (#6)
#8. To: Capitalist Eric (#7)
#9. To: Capitalist Eric (#6)
Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#10. To: Badeye, Capitalist Eric (#8)
Once you understand the global warming is a religion, not something based on 'facts and science' you don't bother with them any longer. Its a waste of time.
Scientific evidence shows many areas of Alaska are experiencing a warming trend. Many experts predict that Alaska, along with our northern latitude neighbors, will continue to warm at a faster pace than any other state, and the warming will continue for decades. Climate change is not just an environmental issue. It is also a social, cultural, and economic issue important to all Alaskans. As a result of this warming, coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, retreating sea ice, record forest fires, and other changes are affecting, and will continue to affect, the lifestyles and livelihoods of Alaskans. Alaska needs a strategy to identify and mitigate potential impacts of climate change and to guide its efforts in evaluating and addressing known or suspected causes of climate change. Alaska's climate change strategy must be built on sound science and the best available facts and must recognize Alaska's interest in economic growth and the development of its resources. Commercializing Alaska's great natural gas reserves through a new pipeline will improve the nation's energy security while providing a clean, low carbon fuel to help the nation reduce its overall greenhouse gas emissions.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#11. To: go65 (#10)
#12. To: go65 (#10)
(Edited)
Scientific evidence shows...
Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006).
#13. To: Capitalist Eric (#12)
(Edited)
[Irrelevant, since the effects due to CO2 are miniscule compared to those of water vapor.]
If a weatherman can't tell you whether it'll be raining in two weeks, what makes you think he can tell you what'll happen in 100 years??? LOL.]
[Models like the infamous "Hockey-Stick" model? Models can be made to show anything you want. And climate modeling is notoriously lacking in accuracy. If a weatherman can't tell you whether it'll be raining in two weeks, what makes you think he can tell you what'll happen in 100 years??? LOL.]
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#14. To: go65 (#13)
#15. To: A K A Stone, capitalist eric, wood_chopper (#14)
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#16. To: go65, A K A Stone, wood_chopper (#15)
NASA just reported that Jan-Sept 2010 was the hottest Jan-Sept ever recorded.
#17. To: go65 (#13)
You have provided nothing that disputes the argument that CO2 amplifies water vapor.
We're talking about climate, not weather, and you are simply dismissing multiple different monitoring systems that are all reporting the same warming trends (and rising CO2).
How about simplyl looking at rising temperatures over the last 30 years? You have offered nothing to dispute the argument that rising CO2 is the biggest factor in that change.
#18. To: Capitalist Eric (#17)
SURE I have. Post #6 provides a variety of references at the bottom.
Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature
Andrew A. Lacis,* Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy
Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate- relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.
Reality check - Government spending is down, the deficit is down, government employment is down, and private hiring is up.
#19. To: go65 (#18)
(Edited)
Yeah, I got a good laugh out of you citing Patrick Michaels, an oil industry funded "scientist" who was told by the state of Virginia to stop calling himself the official climatologist because it wasn't true.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]