here is the chief nutter response from Trenberth... (to the study mentioned 2 posts up... finding the west coast climate is influenced by the PDO... which anyone not a paid nutter already knew.) http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-pacific-warming-20140923-story.html (trenberth) said its conclusions about long-term trends were probably overstated because the quality of data from the early 20th century was poor and unreliable. The results may also reflect the fact that the northeast Pacific is an area of the globe where past studies have shown the "signal" of climate change is low relative to the "noise" of natural variability. "There is no doubt that regionally, the changes in temperature are dominated by changes in the atmospheric circulation that likely have little or nothing to do with climate change," Trenberth said. But, he added, "this does not call into question the concept of global warming." -- editorial comment. first of good job in acknowledging something fraudcurrents ricter and particularly D B phoenix was denying until a few days ago. but then let me give you a yeah sure Kevin and the last part of your comment. with all the studies you know know the currents and tides are substantial inputs in to climate... T But you want to blame all of climate change on man made co2... without any science and knowing co2 lags change in ocean temps.
‘F*** the Police’: Communists, Radicals Spotted Throughout Climate March in New York City Demanding ‘Revolution, Nothing Less’
Google joined the ranks of a growing number of major corporations on Monday when it announced that it was ending its affiliation with the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), with Google chairman Eric Schmidt citing ALEC’s pattern of “lying” about climate change. Speaking with NPR host Diane Rehm, Schmidt announced that the company plans to leave the nationwide network aimed at implementing a conservative social and economic agenda “in the future,” although Schmidt didn’t say when Google would formally break ties with ALEC. Asked what had prompted Google to join ALEC — which gained notoriety in 2011 for its role in influencing union-busting legislation in Wisconsin but has been operating for four decades — Schmidt said that Google “has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts.” “And the facts of climate change are not in question anymore,” Schmidt went on. “Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people—they’re just, they’re just literally lying.” Schmidt’s announcement comes on the heels of Microsoft’s announcement last month that it was parting ways with ALEC; the two companies had both been on ALEC’s task force for communications and technology. Confronted by mounting public pressure, companies like Coca-Cola, General Motors, Bank of America, and Proctor & Gamble have also severed ties with the group. Besides its anti-union, anti-climate science, and anti-Obamacare activities, ALEC helped craft voter suppression initiatives and “stand your ground” laws, only abandoning support for such policies in the face of public protests. And while the group typically isn’t associated with social conservative crusades, a 1985 ALEC document warned of the growing influence of “the homosexual movement,” grouping gay people into six categories: “the blatant, the secret lifer, the desperate, the adjusted, the bisexual and the situational.” It wasn’t until progressive groups began calling for boycotts, however, that ALEC member corporations started jumping ship en masse. Luke Brinker
I posted this on another thread to show fraudcurrents that its very unlikely man's co2 emissions are causing the rise in co2 levels. It is 10 times more likely that the co2 comes from the oceans. http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/ Figure 9: Scatter diagram of carbon emissions change vs atmospheric CO2 change. Note that the R2 value is 0.05386, less than a tenth of the value of SST vs CO2. It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been. As the sun gets quiet in the next few years, sea surface temperature will begin to fall, and the rise in CO2 will cease. If the sun stays quiet for 30 or 40 years, ocean surface temperatures will fall far enough to reverse the CO2 rise, the globe will enter a new little ice age, and things will get really interesting. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/...es-from-natural-sources/#sthash.rbDaQQwH.dpuf
All the highest concentrations are downwind of warm water. The Mediterranean gets very warm in summer so you can see the plume across the Middle East. Australia gets CO2 from the ocean between it and South Africa. South America gets CO2 from the Pacific upwind. Western USA from the Pacific, upwind. Southern Asia gets CO2 from the Indian Ocean, upwind. Article continues below this advert: There is a plume of CO2 downwind of the warm Gulf of Mexico. and so on. There is little or no significant excess CO2 above or downwind of major population centres such as Western Europe or the North Eastern USA. The relatively low CO2 quantities above the equator are due to the clouds and rain of the Intertropical Convergence Zone. The two main bands of higher CO2 concentration are under the subtropical high pressure systems in each hemisphere where most sunshine gets into the oceans to warm the sea surfaces. Atmospheric CO2 is clearly driven by sea surface temperatures affecting oceanic absorption capacity and the AIRS results are proof but so far as I know no one else has pointed it out as yet. Sea surface temperatures are in turn affected by cloudiness and albedo changes and I have extensively described the causes of that elsewhere. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9508
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade…or-natural/ Secondly, the year-to-year increase in atmospheric CO2 does not look very much like the yearly rate of manmade CO2 emissions. The following figure, a version of which appears in the IPCC’s 2007 report, clearly shows that nature has a huge influence over the amount of CO2 that accumulates in the atmosphere every year. The yearly increase of CO2 measured at Mauna Loa shows huge natural fluctuations which are caused by temperature changes. In fact, it turns out that these large year-to-year fluctuations in the rate of atmospheric accumulation are tied to temperature changes, which are in turn due mostly to El Nino, La Nina, and volcanic eruptions. And as shown in the next figure, the CO2 changes tend to follow the temperature changes, by an average of 9 months. This is opposite to the direction of causation presumed to be occurring with manmade global warming, where increasing CO2 is followed by warming. Year to year CO2 fluctuations at Mauna Loa show that the temperature changes tend to precede the CO2 changes. If temperature is indeed forcing CO2 changes, either directly or indirectly, then there should be a maximum correlation at zero months lag for the change of CO2 with time versus temperature (dCO2/dt = a + b*T would be the basic rate equation). And as can be seen in the above graph, the peak correlation between these two variables does indeed occur close to zero months. And this raises an intriguing question: If natural temperature changes can drive natural CO2 changes (directly or indirectly) on a year-to-year basis, is it possible that some portion of the long term upward trend (that is always attributed to fossil fuel burning) is ALSO due to a natural source?
New Research Finds Earth Even Less Sensitive To CO2 Than Previously Thought Research Used Data From This Year’s IPCC 5th Assessment Report London, 25 September: A new paper published in the prestigious journal Climate Dynamics find that the effect of carbon dioxide emissions on global temperatures is likely to be even smaller than previously thought. Earlier this year, in a widely discussed report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, climate researcher Nic Lewis and science writer Marcel Crok put forward a new estimate of the Earth’s climate sensitivity based on observational data, finding that it was much less alarming than suggested by computer simulations of the Earth’s climate. Now, Lewis and well known American climate science professor Judith Curry have updated the Lewis and Crok report estimates using the latest empirical data, a more sophisticated methodology and an approach to accounting for uncertainties that has been described by one independent reviewer as “state of the art”. Their findings fully support the modest estimates of climate sensitivity and future warming given in the Lewis and Crok report, and compared with that report make it look even less likely that the substantially higher estimates based on computer simulations are correct. “Our results, which use data from this year’s IPCC fifth assessment report, are in line with those of several recent studies based on observed centennial warming and strongly suggest complex global climate models used for warming projections are oversensitive to carbon dioxide concentrations,” said Nic Lewis. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/...ess-sensitive-to-co2-than-previously-thought/ here is a link to the paper.... peer reviewed http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y
The latest hand-wringing “myth-buster” video roundly debunked Guest Blogger / 9 hours ago September 25, 2014 By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley The usual suspects have issued yet another “myth-busting” video in their continuing attempt to flog the dead horse of catastrophic Caucasian-caused climate change (CCCCC). This latest droopy me-too effort is at sciencealert.com.au/features/20142309-26219.html. Here are the main points in bold face. Science-based responses are in Roman face. “Overall, temperatures are increasing”. This statement is unscientific because the starting and ending dates are not specified. Temperature has declined since the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000-10,000 years ago. The Old Kingdom, Minoan, Roman, and medieval warm periods were also warmer than the present. Since 1950 there has been warming, but at only half the rate predicted by the IPCC in 1990. In the 17 years 11 months from October 1996 to August 2014 there was no global warming at all, according to the RSS satellite dataset, whose output is not significantly different from that of any other global-temperature dataset. “Storms, droughts, floods, ocean acidification, sea-level rise”: The usual litany. As for storminess, the trend in severe hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones has been downward in recent decades; there has been no trend in landfalling Atlantic hurricanes for 150 years; and the U.S. has enjoyed its longest period without a major hurricane landfall since records began. There is no trend in extra-tropical storminess either, according to the IPCC’s special report on extreme weather. As for floods, the same report, confirmed by the Fifth Assessment Report, says there is no evidence of any global increase in the frequency, intensity, or duration of floods. As for droughts, Hao et al. (2014) show that the land area under drought has fallen slightly over the past 30 years. As for ocean “acidification”, the ocean remains pronouncedly alkaline, with a pH around 8 (where 7 is neutral and values below 7, such as the 5.4 for rainwater, are acid). Why is rainwater acid? Because it is the “missing sink” that scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. When the rainfall reaches the ocean, it locally alters the pH at the surface by a minuscule amount. However, where rivers debouch into the ocean (as the Brisbane River does just opposite the Great Barrier Reef), pH can vary locally by large amounts: yet calcifying organisms thrive nevertheless. The oceans are strongly buffered by the basalt basins in which they lie: so our capacity to alter the pH of the oceans by our tiny alteration of the composition of the atmosphere is as near nil as makes no difference. And there is no global measurement network for ocean pH, for two reasons: first, no automated pH measuring device has proven successful; and secondly, notwithstanding the propaganda everyone in the field knows perfectly well that ocean pH is not going to change very much, and that, even if it did, calcifying organisms are well adapted to dealing with it. As for sea-level rise, the GRACE gravitational-recovery satellites showed sea-level falling from 2003-2009 (Cazenave et al., 2009). The Envisat satellite showed sea-level rising by a dizzying one-eighth of an inch during its eight-year lifetime from 2004-2012. The intercalibration errors between the Jason-Topex-Poseidon laser-altimetry satellites are greater than the sea-level rise they pretend to find. Sea level is probably not rising any faster in this century than it did in the last: and, since there has been no global warming for almost 18 years, there is no particular reason why it should be rising at all. A telling comparison between the reconstructed sea-level changes shown in Grinsted et al. (2009) and the schematic showing surface temperature change in IPCC (1990) indicates that sea-level was 8 in. higher than the present in the medieval warm period and 8 in. lower than the present in the little ice age.
“13 of the last 14 years have been the warmest since records began”: This, too, is an unscientific statement. Records began only in 1850. And, like it or not, there has been no trend in global temperatures for about 13.5 years on the mean of the terrestrial records and on the mean of the satellite records. Yet CO2 concentration has continued to rise at record rates. Absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation. The rising CO2 concentration cannot be causing the lack of warming evident over the past couple of decades. “Not only Arctic but also Antarctic sea ice volume is declining”: Not a good moment to run this argument, given that satellites do not do a very good job of estimating ice thickness, but are at present showing a record high sea-ice extent in the Antarctic, a substantial recovery of Arctic ice even in the summer, and no appreciable change in global sea-ice extent throughout the 35-year satellite record. “The Sun is dimmer, but temperatures are rising”. The Sun is indeed becoming less active, but global mean surface temperature is not rising. It is not falling either. Perhaps the modest decline in solar activity is being offset by a modest forcing from the additional CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere: if so, then the CO2 forcing is substantially less than the IPCC imagines. Indeed, Professor David Douglass of Rochester University has recently asked me an interesting question: has anyone attempted empirical measurements, rather than modeling, to determine the CO2 forcing? Please let us know in comments if you are aware of any atmospheric measurements on the basis of which the CO2 forcing has been quantified. The value in the IPCC’s recent documents was determined by inter-comparison between three models, and, given the lamentable performance of models in every other field of climate prediction, perhaps Professor Douglass has a point. “We add 30 GTe CO2 each year, but Nature adds 780 GTe: however, Nature also takes away 780 GTe, so our net effect is to increase CO2 in the air.” Not quite right. We emit 35 GTe CO2 each year at present, but only half of this remains in the air: the rest is scrubbed out by rain or taken up by the ocean, trees and plants. Nor is it wise to assume a pre-existing balance of CO2 sources and sinks. Close examination shows considerable annual variations in the net CO2 increase in the air, suggesting that our monotonic influence is a rather small part of the picture. “We know the CO2 remaining in the air is substantially manmade because fossil-fuel CO2 has less carbon-13 than the air, and the carbon-13 fraction in the air is falling”. The difference between fossil-fuel carbon-13 content and general atmospheric CO2 content is not as great as was once thought, and the carbon-13 content in the air is falling very slowly. This method of attribution is fraught with measurement and coverage uncertainties. “The concentration of water vapor, the most potent greenhouse gas, is increasing, causing a positive feedback”. Not all records show the water vapor increasing, particularly in the crucial upper to mid troposphere. The “positive feedback” may even be a negative feedback. If water vapor were causing a strong positive feedback, global temperature should have risen at least as fast as the IPCC predicted in 1990, but it has risen only half as fast, leading the IPCC almost to halve its medium-term predictions of global climate change. “CO2 lagged temperature change in the paleoclimate, but it acted as a reinforcing or positive feedback once the Milankovich cycles had triggered temperature change, amplifying it 9-fold”. Given the many uncertainties in paleoclimate analysis, no firm conclusion can be drawn as to the magnitude of the CO2 feedback. The IPCC’sFourth Assessment Report put it at 25-225 ppmv per Kelvin – an order-of-magnitude interval that shows very clearly how unwise it is to assume that CO2 was the main reason for temperature change in the paleoclimate. After all, during the Neoproterozoic era 750 million years ago, equatorial glaciers came and went twice at sea level. There are no equatorial glaciers at sea level today. Yet today, to the nearest tenth of one percent, there is no CO2 in the atmosphere at all. Now contrast the fact-based responses to the goofy scare stories of the “myth-busters”. If the news media had been willing to print facts instead of extremist predictions, the general population – and the scientifically illiterate politicians who represent them – would be in a better position to judge for themselves whether to be scared about manmade global warming. On the real-world evidence, there is no longer any legitimate pretext for fear, and still less for the “climate action” that that needless fear engenders. And should not Ban Ki-Moon, having relentlessly ignored facts such as those briefly set out here, resign forthwith and for aye? He abandoned the impartiality that his office demands and took sides with communists and kooks by participating in the fatuous New York useful idiots’ climate march. He must go – and the U.N. with him. What little use it had has gone.