Last week, NewsBusters readers were introduced to Portland, Maine’s fabulous fifteen-year-old, Kristen Byrnes, whose website “Ponder the Maunder” marvelously takes on anthropogenic global warming myths including those being advanced by soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore.
As will be revealed post haste, this newest – and likely youngest – member of the growing list of folks skeptical about man’s role in climate change actually walks the walk better than she talks the talk.
Yet, despite her youth and precocious scientific acumen, it seems quite unlikely that she’ll be sitting down with Matt Lauer or Diane Sawyer any time soon to discuss her research concerning one of the most popular subjects on the media’s front-burner. Why?
Because a prediction that she made last month concerning Australia's drought has marvelously borne fruit making the scientists employed by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change look a bit foolish.
To set this up, here’s what the IPCC Summary for Policymakers report released on April 7 predicted regarding Australia (emphasis added):
As a result of reduced precipitation and increased evaporation, water security problems are projected to intensify by 2030 in southern and eastern Australia and, in New Zealand, in Northland and some eastern regions. ** D [11.4]
[…]
Production from agriculture and forestry by 2030 is projected to decline over much of southern and eastern Australia, and over parts of eastern New Zealand, due to increased drought and fire.
About two weeks later, in an Internet discussion group which I belong to that deals exclusively with anthropogenic global warming issues, Byrnes wrote the following to an Australian participant (emphasis added, released with her permission and that of her parents):
I was just looking at my ENSO 3.4 chart when I was responding to Eduardo's email. It looks like the ENSO has been positive for 95% of the last 6 years. Since Austrailia [sic] experiences warm and dry conditions during positive ENSO, six years of drought would not surprise me. But it is headed negative very quickly now, so you might want to dust off your umbrella.
Well, just last week, there were signs from Australia that the six-year-old drought might be over. As reported by News.com.au on May 18 in an article deliciously titled “Drought Could Be Ending”:
THE El Nino weather system has run its course and the weather bureau says the worst drought in a century could be coming to an end, as heavy rain soaked parched southeastern Australia.
Inland NSW and north-east Victoria enjoyed heavy rainfall today, with reports from 20-30mm falling in some areas and as high as 53mm in country Victoria, Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) senior forecaster Phil King said.
[…]
Mr King said the rainfall reflected a shift in weather patterns back to a more normal situation following an end to the drought-making El Nino and signs emerging of its opposite, a La Nina, which brings rain.
"The El Nino is over,'' he said.
"The global patterns are indicating there are more neutral and natural conditions and with the rainfalls, there are signs we have returned to more normal patterns.''
Certainly great news for Australians, wouldn't you agee? And, the Canberra Times reported Wednesday (emphasis added):
Winter has arrived early on the Snowy Mountains in spectacular fashion.
A blanket of snow has covered much of the high ranges of the Kosciuszko National Park over the past two days and hopes are running high for the coming ski season.
After spending much of the summer season enduring the drought and feeling the threat of climate change, the residents of Jindabyne are alight with anticipation of a good season. The town, at the foot of the national park, almost triples in size during the snow season and relies heavily on the tourist dollar.
"Don't you worry, this season will be a good one, this is a big one. You'll see, we can feel it," one long-time resident said.
As for agriculture, The Age reported Thursday:
A good wet season in northern Australia has put Queensland-based cattle producer Australian Agricultural Co Ltd (AAco) on track for an improved performance this year.
AAco managing director Don Mackay said recent rain in some parts of southern states had also boosted prospects.
And, News.com.au reported the following on Thursday as well (emphasis added):
Recent storms over the northeast Top End put the icing on the cake for the Nothern [sic] Territory's rain totals, which have been more than 5 times the May average in some areas.
Places such as Batchelor Airport in the north, and Kulgera in the Alice Springs district have had more than 500% of their average monthly rainfall.
Lajamanu has done particularly well with more than 7 times their average monthly rain. Most of that was from a heavy downpour of 44mm. 20mm of that fell within 1 hour.
On Thursday storms crossing the eastern Top End drenched Nhulunbuy, with 41mm recorded from this event. Showers will continue on Friday in moist, unstable easterly winds, with falls heaviest in the east.
Obviously, Kristen’s April 20 suggestion that folks in Australia better dust off their umbrellas was rather prescient. Just imagine if this 15-year-old’s prediction supported the Global Warmingist-in-Chief Al Gore’s position on man’s role in climate change. Think she’d be Matt, Meredith, and Diane’s guest tomorrow?
Regardless of the answer, here’s what Kristen saw in the climate data that the global warming alarmists working for the U.N. either didn’t recognize or chose to ignore as shared with me by e-mail:
There are certain rules in climate. One of them is that when there is an El Nino, there is dry weather in Australia, especially during their summer. Here is a map of what I am talking about:.
and during their winter:
Australia has been in drought for about 6 years because there have been positive ENSO conditions for most of the past 6 years.
ENSO stands for El Niño/Southern Oscillation; more information on this indicator is available here and here. Kristen continued her explanation:
This is the NOAA Oceanic Nino Index. There are many different ENSO indexes. I use this one because it is updated all the time.
NOAA also publishes ENSO forecasts. They are usually pretty good a few months in advance but not perfect. Last month the La Nina was starting much faster but it has slowed down. This means that Australia will have normal rainfall for the planting season. The forecast for ENSO can be found here.
Kristen then addressed why so much of the alarmism is based on specious science:
The reason that computer climate models do not work is because they cannot predict volcanoes, ENSO and solar variance. They also do not understand how water vapor and clouds work.
Another rule in climate is that El Nino warms the average global temperature and La Nina is the opposite. During normal conditions the trade winds at the equator blow cool water off the coast of Peru to the east and cause warm water to pile up near Indonesia, the wind pressure actually causes sea water levels to be higher there. During La Nina, the winds blow even harder and pile the water up even more. During El Nino the winds slow down and the warm water flows back to Peru.
The result is, during La Nina (cool event) the cold water coming from the bottom of the ocean near Peru is blown across the surface to Indonesia. The Earth's normal circulation that takes heat from the equator towards the poles has less heat to move to the poles.
On the other hand, when there is an El Nino, the warm water spreads across the surface back to Peru. More warm water is in contact with the air above and the Earth's circulation takes that heat toward the poles.
From about 1944 to 1976 the ENSO was mostly negative and solar increased then decreased. Temperatures during this time cooled a little. Since 1976 the ENSO has been more positive. This along with increasing solar activity has combined to warm the globe. What is expected over the next few years is for the ENSO to move back to a negative phase and for solar activity to level off then go down. That is why the weather guy said that in 5 years global warming will be a joke.
Kristen was referring to a NewsBusters' article about New Zealand's favorite weatherman, Augie Auer, who was quoted last week as saying that over-hyped fears regarding climate change are "all going to be a joke in five years."
Kristen continued:
I am already seeing signs that the climate is cooling. Since 2001 the oceans have not warmed. 2005 was supposed to be the warmest year on record but ENSO went a little negative that year. That means the base temperature (the oceans) was as warm as it is going to get because 2006 was an El Nino year and it was the 6th warmest on record. Keep in mind that for the last 70 years there has been an 11,000 year solar high. It takes time for all that heat to build up in the oceans, but it seems that the oceans are as warm as they will get from this 11,000 year solar high. This year will be cooler than last year because it will be an ENSO negative year and the solar cycle still has not started yet.
Also keep in mind that just because there is no El Nino or La Nina, there is still heating or cooling. ENSO positive that does not get to the level of El Nino will still warm the climate, just a lot less. Same with ENSO negative that does not make the level of La Nina.
So, what does all this tell us?
Well, if the drought in Australia and New Zealand is indeed ending – and, certainly, early-season rains and snowstorms do not yet prove this – one must question the models being used by the IPCC to forecast climate change in the future.
After all, if a long-range forecast issued April 7 ends up being wrong five weeks later, why on earth would we trust these folks from the U.N. to be able to accurately predict what’s going to happen next year, or fifty to a hundred years from now?
Maybe more important, should we actually enact policy changes that could negatively impact the economy on the recommendations of a group that can’t accurately predict events beyond just a month and a half?
Of course, the other likely more pivotal side of this revelation is whether the scientists involved are just incompetent, or willfully malfeasant. As Kristen wrote in her e-mail message to me, “They were probably trying to scare the people of Australia into signing Kyoto.”
Well, if this is the case, then aren’t all involved participating in a shameful scam?
Think about it. If this is indeed about getting developed nations to agree to the Kyoto Protocol, isn’t the U.N. best served by predicting calamitous climate events regardless of their merit in order to scare the public into complacent support?
If there is evidence to suggest that this is indeed the case – for example, proof of errant predictions by the IPCC – shouldn’t the veracity and integrity of the information emanating from this organization be much more thoroughly scrutinized?
Sounds like questions good journalists should be asking, wouldn’t you agree?
So, why aren’t they?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Code
May 24, 2007 - 10:03 ET by acumenAnother rule in climate is that El Nino warms the average global temperature.....
El Nino = liberal code name for Karl Rove.
Good journalists---
May 24, 2007 - 10:10 ET by misterbillGood journalists---get the facts, explore the possibilities and report factually. When something is probable, they let their readers know it's probable. Today in the MSM almost every article is an Opinion piece. I expect to read an opinion piece and basically agree or disagree with. It is frightening to me that I can no longer trust a news piece to be truthful.
On the other hand, if they all told the truth, there would be no MRC and no NewsBusters. So out of bad comes some good.
Thanks Noel, great piece.
Thanks Kristen, you do your age group and America a great service.
Your comments about the med
May 24, 2007 - 11:53 ET by marvlYour comments about the media are dead-on. In addition to opinion mongers, the MSM today is more entertainment than journalism. I can remember 25 or more years ago reading Time magazine or the NYT and trusting what I read. Nowdays they are barely usable for wiping one's ass. TV, of course, is unbelievably worse. News programs are on a par with such gems as Jerry Springer and Court TV.
Great artical Noel, great new
May 24, 2007 - 10:21 ET by general companyGreat artical Noel, great new's as well. Imagine a 15yr old out predicting PHD's. Wow,
That should be no surprise.Th
May 24, 2007 - 11:09 ET by NL207That should be no surprise.
The minds of the AGW Phd's are almost completely closed. Just look at the arguments of belag, who regularly posts here, or Throatwobbler, who used to post here.
None of the AGW researchers have accounted for the role of precipitation in their computer models. Nor do most of them accept the premise that small variance in solar output will have any measureable effect on the earth, an assertion which literally defies common sense.
In the matter of solar variance: The AGW community bases its opinions about this on the blackbody radiator model of earth. That model says the 0.05 percent per decade increase in solar radiance obsevered from approximately 1975 - 2001 will not produce a temperature change in the earth of the magnitude observed. [Direct measurements of this parameter only exists since satellte technology made it possible.] Therefore they reject the proposition.
I believe this is faulty logic. For the years we have hard temperature data [since about 1850] there is a strikingly strong statistical correlation between sunspot activity and warm temperatures. This bears investigation, but for the AGWers to seriously investigate this they have to be willing to challenge their cionclusions that CO2 increase is the major cause of global warming. The fault in the logic lies in the assumption that earth is a blackbody radiator. It is not. A blackbody radiator absorbs all radiation incident upon it. The earth does not meet this test. It only approximates this test. It reflects a percentage of incident radiation. Earth has albedo. The AGWers assume that earth's albedo is approximately 3% and does not vary much. These are dangerous assumptions because there are no measurements to confirm this is true for all conditions. It has only been possible to directly measure this for about the last 35 years. Clouds [pesky water vapor again] have a significant impact on albedo. As far as I know, nobody has scientifically proven cloud formation is independent of solar activity. Worse for the AGWers, there are a couple of papers about that have postulated a direct connection between solar activity and cloud formation. If these theories are confirmed by experiment, the AGWer assumption that dismisses solar radiation variation as the culprit in GW is invalidated.
Understanding and reality
May 25, 2007 - 21:17 ET by belagThe other thread seems to be dead, so I'll post here. If you want, I can continue the discussion there.
There are a few issues with your post. First, since we have only precise data since 1970s and the measurements of solar activity say, it's insufficient to explain the temperature rise.
I'll make this comment about the next paragraph. You seem to think that the greenhouse gas theory makes this or that assumption. That's simply not correct. Just because you get your facts from somewhere and understand the theory in some terms, it doesn't mean the theory says that.
If you're serious about the albedo affect (a widely studied phenomenon in literature), clouds and the solar activity, you'll read what they say. Then you're free to disagree with it. But don't confuse your idea of what the theory is with the actual theory.
Another thing is, just because somebody wrote a paper giving a theory, doesn't mean that it's correct. Look at the paper and look at the critiques. I mentioned one particular critique of Svensmark-Christensen. It doesn't fit with the recent rise in temperature, because the graphs stop at the year 1975.
It seems you and me are living in separate realities, we can't even agree about what the theory says.
By the way, if you're serious about learning about the issues, here's a good place to start. The recent IPCC report. You can agree or disagree with it, but it's a good resource to at least know what the theory is before you denounce it.
By the way, the code for at least one of the computer models is also publicly available, you can look at it and see how it works.
Kristen Byrnes I wanted to fi
May 26, 2007 - 23:50 ET by Kristen ByrnesKristen Byrnes
I wanted to fill in the blanks that belag missed.
He is correct that good measurements of solar activity go back only to the 1970’s. The latest study on this is from Peter Foukal and was only abut irradiance. But when you read Dr. Foukal’s study, it is stated right in the abstract that there are other possibilities, “Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun’s output of ultra violet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out.” Later in his study he specifically mentions uncertainties in climate sensitivity and the large thermal inertia of the oceans. The press reported widely that this study ruled out the sun. LOL! They didn’t even read the abstract!
About greenhouse theory, CO2 is a well-mixed gas. Its concentration rises at a steady constant rate. The amount of warming should also increase at the same steady constant rate. So the temperature should rise at a similar constant rate unless something like a big volcano or ENSO event changes things. Not only that but CO2 increases should lead temperature increases. This has not been the case because 80% of the warming in the 20th century leads CO2. Also the cooling period from 1944 to 1976 completely contradicts greenhouse theory. So does the leveling off of temperatures in the last 5 years. So do the observations in 450,000 years of ice core records. The real evidence for me is the observation that temperatures of the last 120 years closely follow changes in ENSO and PDO. The only time that temperature departs ENSO is when there is high or low solar activity.
As for the comment about Svensmark-Christensen and the graphs ending in 1975, that is correct. Solanki made the same comment and noted that solar (or at least what he knew about solar) could not explain temperature increases after 1976, the same time of the last ENSO and PDO phase shifts to warm from cool that he did not mention.
As for the IPCC and computer climate models, I suppose you all know my take on those.
Solar radiation and other issues
May 27, 2007 - 06:16 ET by belagHere
's the abstract of Foukal's paper. Here's the operative sentences one either way of the one you quoted:"In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output
variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity
change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the
Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming
since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in
the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas,
cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex
to evaluate meaningfully at present."
I mean, I interpret the statement to say pretty bluntly that, as far as we know, the solar activity is not a source of global warming. You can judge for youself.
There can always be theories which may be able to explain everything. But as far as we know, and we can evaluate, the sun is not a significant factor in the recent warming.
Kristen Byrnes LOL Belag, tha
May 27, 2007 - 09:05 ET by Kristen ByrnesKristen Byrnes
LOL Belag, that's some interpretation. One of many factors is ruled out so let's say for now that we will rule them all out and the science is settled?
Interpretations
May 27, 2007 - 18:27 ET by belagYou can have your own interpretation. That's your right.
I
interpret it as: as far as we know, the intensity of the Sun's
brightness was not a factor in the global warming. The other factors
are not well understood and there's no evidence that they play any
significant role. We just don't know.
Let me make a crucial
point: in science, we go by what we know. In principle, we could be
wrong. But we don't give credence to any theory that has not been
verified.
Also, look at an alternative viewpoint: Suppose you
were an AGW supporter. Would you give any credibility to a theory which
is very complex and is not backed by evidence?
I call B.S.!
May 27, 2007 - 18:57 ET by Free StinkerBut we don't give credence to any theory that has not been verified.
I call BS !
Plenty of credence has been given to the Theory of Evolution & that one violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one building.
I'm going to pile-on with t
May 30, 2007 - 10:20 ET by sarcasmoI'm going to pile-on with the 15 year old against you here. Saying "The other factors are not well understood and there's no evidence that they play any significant role. We just don't know." is IMO ignoring the obvious. For example, everyone here should have a look at this graph. Know what a gigawatt is?? Adding that much more energy into any system -- even if brightness is totally-stable, which it isn't -- is likely to have some temperature effects on that system.
JMR
Kristen Byrnes LOL belag, you
May 30, 2007 - 12:57 ET by Kristen ByrnesKristen Byrnes
LOL belag, you're asking me to fantasize about... a fantasy?
The suns brightness is not di
May 30, 2007 - 13:07 ET by bassndudeThe suns brightness is not directly representive of its temp. I dont think that brightness is a consideration, all tho it can be observed. Example: If you build a fire of wood, (camping), most of the flame is yellow and this sheds the most light. Light a propane flame and it is blue. Dosent throw off as much visiable light, but is much hotter. Brightness is not a consideration for warming or cooling where the sun is concerned. As a matter of fact, the more sunspots the dimmer the sun, but more radiant heat is observed.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Belag ~ "as far as we kn
May 30, 2007 - 01:50 ET by liberal_bug_zapperBelag ~ "as far as we know, the solar activity is not a source of global warming."
That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.... and many on your side say some pretty stupid stuff.
You must know that the sun is the ONLY SOURCE OF GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!
How can a person who walks out side and feels the HEAT OF THE SUN on their face come to any other conclusion?????
Almost every source of energy we use comes from the sun. Noted exception is Nuclear as the radiation from plutonium does not originate from the sun. But coal, oil, wind, solar (totally obvious), and even hydro electric (which needs rivers - which need rain - which needs evaporation... which comes from the sun). It is inconceivable that someone who is a thinking human being could even contemplate saying that the sun isn't the cause of global warming... that's like saying that water is not the cause of being wet.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
More pablum form belag.If a
May 26, 2007 - 23:51 ET by NL207More pablum form belag.
If a model is completely public and you know where it is, buy yourself some credibility and link it. I've not seen one that was complete and compilable, not even the Hadley Center models and they are very open about what they are doing at the Hadley Center.
Another tainted reference. Instead of linking RealClimate yet again, we get another link from the leftist dominated AGW industry, this time it's the IPCC, and the 4th report no less, the most manipulated and politicized of the 4. This isn't even the 4th report. It is pablum designed for consumption by the ignorant distilled from the fourth report. This is an insult.
Why is it you never seem able to link either (a) a peer reviewed paper or (b) an article based upon a peer reviewed paper to suport any of your claims? You must realize by now that I have access to Scitex, ISI and most of the other citation services. It will never take me more than 72 hours to get access to any widely published paper you name.
I will continue this debate with you inspite of my better judgement to contrary. I still think you are a contributor to RealClimate and you have never denied this, preferring instead to ignore the charge.
NLDo keep posting there are p
May 26, 2007 - 23:58 ET byNL
Do keep posting there are people here that learn from You, Miles, Kristen, Delia, . . .
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I appreciate the vote of conf
May 27, 2007 - 00:22 ET by NL207I appreciate the vote of confidence but don't put too much faith in me! My physics training is 35 years old, I'm a H*** of a lot older than that, and my advanced degrees, while technical, are in a different field.
References and code
May 27, 2007 - 06:27 ET by belagHere
's how to get the code, NL207.
As for a link: Foukal's review in Nature.
My above post was not to give you a references for peer reviewed papers (by the way, how many have you given me?) The point I was making was that there are many of your claims about albedo, water vapour and solar radiation which are simply incorrect (as far as I know). My point was: are you making a honest effort to learn about the theory before you decide it's incorrect?
As for a being a contributor to realclimate, I'm not. I already told you in our sequence of PMs. And I fail to see how it's relevant.
I'll take a look at it these
May 28, 2007 - 02:10 ET by NL207I'll take a look at it these links shortly. As a memory jogger, this may be the one model I had seen most of. This is garden season. Weeds, insects and vegetables take precedence over politics abnd science in season.
As for links, the articles I link WRT any scientific topic usually satisy three conditions:
I've noticed that you fail to see a lot of things. We've discussed that before. That you would fail to see how significant it would be for one of the Realclimate contributors to be posting on a blog like NB doesn't surprise me.
fail to see a lot of things.O
May 28, 2007 - 11:18 ET by dahliatraversfail to see a lot of things.
On many occasions, there has been such a disconnect between Belag's post and the comment he is responding to that I've wondered if he is actually a bot posting non-contextual, pre-programmed answers to key words.
answers to key wordsKey, de
May 28, 2007 - 11:26 ET byanswers to key words
Key, device used to open lock
BOT---G
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
(gasp)
May 28, 2007 - 21:07 ET by dahliatravers(gasp) Not you, botg!
The model in question is nott
May 28, 2007 - 23:42 ET by NL207The model in question is not the one I have seen before. This model is NASA's modelE1. It was used in its Feb 1, 2004 version for the IPCC 2007 report. It's also written in FORTRAN, stone age technology. Not many folks have FORTRAN compilers anymore. These guys at NASA are really up-to-date. No wonder software faults continue to plague NASA projects at great cost to the taxpayers.
Foukal's analysis framework is the same as the other AGW nonsense I've seen. He and his co-authors approach the problem in a state of bias. This is the second and third paragraphs of the paper, visible only of you have access to Nature:
"The possible effect on climate of variations in the Sun's total power output, or luminosity, has interested the scientific and financial communities since at least William Herschel's eighteenth-century study of correlations between sunspots and British grain prices. A proper measure for the Sun's output in this context is the wavelength-integrated radiation flux illuminating the Earth at its average distance from the Sun, called the total solar irradiance (TSI). Uncertainties imposed by the Earth's atmosphere delayed precise determination of variations in TSI until satellite-borne radiometry became available about a quarter of a century ago. Although the TSI fluctuations discovered so far through these measurements are too small to have a significant effect on climate1, their analysis has now led to a robust understanding of solar luminosity variations, and new insights into the influence of magnetic fields on stellar convection. This advance in understanding is important, because it allows us to use the relatively short time series of space-borne measurements, along with other kinds of solar observations, to draw conclusions about the probable behaviour of TSI over past centuries and millennia, the timescales of more direct interest to climate studies.
From the theory of stellar evolution, we know that the Sun has gradually brightened by about 30% since it settled down to steady nuclear burning of hydrogen roughly 4.5 billion years ago. In spite of this reduced luminosity, the early Earth avoided completely freezing over, most probably because of much higher concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as methane or carbon dioxide (CO2) (ref. 2). The more recent glacial/interglacial cycles provide us with an example of climate response over the shorter timescales of tens of thousands to millions—rather than billions—of years. The driving force here appears to be mainly variations in insolation, that is, the latitudinal and seasonal distribution of solar energy incident on the Earth, rather than in TSI itself. Such variations are thought to be caused by cyclic and predictable changes in the Earth's orbital parameters, the primary forcing effect being amplified by feedbacks involving CO2 (ref. 3)."
I see an obvious error in it. Do you? And did you notice that Foukal, et. al. rely on this paper (ref. 1) to declare that TSI does not affect climate:
"Wigley, T. M. L. & Raper, S. C. B. Climatic change due to solar irradiance changes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2169–2172 (1990)"
Foukal's conclusion in the abstract to this effect appears to come from more from this earlier work than anything he did.
Moreover, they specifically exempt efffects caused by varying solar magnetic fields and radiation outside the visible spectra from their analysis. Even their abstract says this. It is magnetic effects acting as a valve to cosmic radiation that Svensmark, Veizer and others postulate are contributing to warming.
Last, Foukal generalizes his results to the entire period since 1700, despite the fact he only has data since 1978. If you read his paper, he justifies generalizations over all time.
Last, the Foukal paper's conclusions are in direct conflict with the paper referenced by this article and several others on this topic. It is of interest to note the paper I reference was also published in Geophysical Research Letters, as was the 1990 paper Foukal references.
In short, Foukal hasn't really proven anything about Solar conbtributions to global warming.
Solar radiation
May 29, 2007 - 21:05 ET by belagSince you haven't made any serious criticisms of the code, I'll confine myself to the solar radiation theory.
First, Foukal didn't do any original research, it's a review article about the current state of the science.
I'm sorry, I don't see an obvious error in the two paragraphs. Can you point it out to me?
Also,
I fail to see that the paper "Climatic change due to solar
irradiatiance" is an inappropriate source. If you have any concrete
criticism, I'll be glad to hear it.
Notice, you haven't come up
with any serious argument about the role of sun's brightness in the
warming. Let's turn to other issues.
About the role of magnetic
fields, clouds etc. I'll just make the following comment. Why do you
believe in a theory whose mechanism is not known, no evidence is given
and doesn't even include recent data, as opposed to the greenhouse gas
theory? Are you applying similar standards?
About the DukeNews article, the following statement is all I see relevant:
"However, they emphasized that their
findings do not argue against the basic theory that significant
global warming is occurring because of carbon dioxide and other
“greenhouse” gases."
All they're talking about is the elaboration of the basic theory to take into account some changes.
I've downloaded the code. I
May 30, 2007 - 01:16 ET by NL207I've downloaded the code. I DO speak FORTRAN. I will investigate it, but not right away. ... and it is still stone age computer methodolgy. The presence of FORTRAN here suggests strongly this model is quite old and that its developers have been stuck in a philosophical rut for quite some time. The very last new FORTRAN code I have seen in industry [of course, this IS the government] dates from prior to 1980, suggesting this thing has its roots in the ice age scare of the 1970's.
Foukal didn't do any new measurements. He DID re-interpret old results. But his "results" produced no new conclusions. Therefore his paper is useless. He is merely reiterating the prior conclusions of the original research of others. Your reference is really the referenced papers in his bibliography.
You missed this: "From the theory of stellar evolution we know that the sun has gradually brightened by about 30% .... In spite of this reduced luminosity ......" According to belag by Foukal, increasing brightness ==> reduced luminosity. Don't you think this is an obvious clerical error in the preparation of the paper, or do you actually believe this, or as is most likely the case, you simply did not read it?
I haven't made any claims about the role of increased luminosity because I don't need to. Any fool who has gotten a sunburn knows that increasing solar luminosity is going to have an effect., any fool that is except a member of the AGW community, who persist in relying on the traditional blackbody radiator models to compute the effect of solar luminosity on the temperature of the Earth in spite of the fact that computations using soley this model are in conflict with an observable statiscal correlation between sunspot activity and weather patterns. Foukal even mentions this with his reference to Herschel in the 18th century. Instead of hypothesizing an explanation for the observed phenomena, the AGWers simply dismiss it as insignificant coincidence and ascribe the cause to CO2. Perhaps this is why their models continue to fail over the intervals 1940-1975 or 1920-1940 without special assumptions? This is the essence of dogma.
I don't BELIEVE in either theory. The GHG model does not explain the observed behavior. Therefore, it is, as it is presently constructed, false. there is no other possible conclusion. If the hypothesis cannot reproduce the observation, the hypothesis must be wrong. Pure scientific method. Why do you not see this? Even the 15 year old kid here gets this. The cosmic ray-cloud formation theory attempts to account for this observed behavior of the system: It gets warmer when there are a lot of sun spots. Its proofs thus far are confined to cloud chamber experiments [Svensmark]. It is still an unproven theory, but at least it has not been rejected by real world data as has the GHG theory.
The Duke team is (a) clearly trying to avoid the political intimidation that will surely result from a finding that the sun is causing 30% of global warming, so they coyly produce an uncertainty range of 10-30%. (b) The Duke team IS saying that GHG are not the only significant factor. This is in contrast the the AGW community who dismiss solar variance as a source of warming. Of course you don't see that at all. All they are talking about is trying to connect the primary climate mover with the theory of climate! Why don't you look up the original publication and read through it? I gave you a reference to it. Geophysical Research Letters is like all the other journals. It's pay access past the abstract, which is why I don't link those things here, just the reference to them.
The 20,000 foot view: The blackbody radiator model says the sun is responsible for 85% of the warmth on this planet. [generaly accepted value is 255 K] The atmospheric greenhouse effect accounts for another 33 K to get the mean near surface temperature of 288 K. Water vapor is the dominant GHG and as even YOU have observed, man has no control over it. It is pervasive. H2O accounts for approximately 95% of the greenhouse effect, according to an assortment of sources one of which is: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government: "the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor". The partial contribution of H2O must be around 31 K. So that leaves about 2 degrees K for all the remaining greenhouse gases, doesn't it? Typical engineer, I love to estimate. Its a great measure of feasibility. Assuming CO2 is ALL of this, which we know it is not, this suggests that increasing CO2 by 38% which is what actually happened over the last 150 years ought to produce something close to 0.76 degree K warming. The IPCC 2007 report says that warming last century was 0.75-0.90 degree K. The last 150 years is more like 1.0 degree. Allowing that the sun probably caused 10-30% of the total as per the Duke paper, assuming the actual value is 24%, we've got a good estimate.
I can arrive at this immediate conclusion without even taking in to detailed account the differences in IR spectral filtering attributable to H2O and CO2: The alarmist AGW predictions of 5.4 to 10 degree K increases over the next century are most likely bulls**t. Even the predictions of 1.7 K are suspect. the most likely scenario is less than or equal to the MINIMUM prediction made by the IPCC, 1.4 K. This is still within the range of variation seen over the ice age cycles of the last million years, representing the thermal maxima of the interglacial periods, and by coincidence, this time, now, is the thermal maxima of this interglacial period. Therefore there is no cause for alarm for the next century on this account according to the current understanding.
They will bury you long before you ever reach this conclusion because your mind is closed. Notice that I've never said that CO2 wasn't having an effect? I am contending that the effect is small, dwarfed by natural factors, and the alarmists are just that, people with an agenda trying to inflate this into an emergency to satisfy their own private motives.
Wacky Calculation
May 30, 2007 - 22:12 ET by belagThere's are quite a number of problems with your calculation.
First
of all, you have taken no account whatever of the uncertainty in the
values. 255K, 288K. What're there uncertainties? If you're talking
about 0.24K out of 1.0K where are the uncertainties there? And where do
you get the 1.0K from? Where do you get the 95% from? Here's the
reference you gave:
"Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total
heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor. In
the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor."
You can decide for yourself whether you're seriously investigating this.
This
is basic stuff. And I'm sure the Duke University researcher, when they
take into account this, give their figure 10-30%. That's 24% figure is
meaningless.
And the main point they make is, it in no way detracts from the
basic theory that there's significant warming taking place by CO2.
As
to the interpretation. I'm not sure what the point about luminosity is.
Are you claiming the warming is because of the 30% increase in
luminosity over 4.5 billion years? In the last 30 years there's no
evidence of luminosity affecting the temperature.
As to the "reduced luminosity", I can only offer my own interpretation. You're free to agree/disagree with it.
As
the rest of the statement continues: Earth's temperature is higher by
around 33K because of the greenhouse effect. This is what they mean by
"reduced luminosity", that the luminosity is not sufficient to explain
the temperature if you don't include the contribution by the greenhouse
gases.
As to your "alarmist" data of 10K warming, it would be alarming, if it were true. Unfortunately, it's much outside the accepted range of warming.
Belag, other than repeating
May 30, 2007 - 22:51 ET by dahliatraversBelag, other than repeating some numbers, most of this does not pertain to what NL207 said. You are either not correctly reading the posts you are responding to or you are communicating them (badly) them to a third party for him or her to formulate a response.
This would be seriously annoying except that you have unintentionally inspired NL207 and MilesD to detail the scientific case against AGW, which has been enlightening and enjoyable.
1940 - 1975You know, even a t
May 30, 2007 - 23:05 ET by dahliatravers1940 - 1975
You know, even a ten year period of cooling might be a fluctuation that we could overlook. Thirty+ years is just too big a hole in a theory, especially when the theory only spans 150 years.
The GHG model does not explain the observed behavior.
This is a serious problem. How can this model be held up as "evidence" for a theory?
Re the cosmic ray/clouds thing
May 26, 2007 - 06:41 ET by John CookI've wondered about this cosmic ray/clouds idea that's been kicked around lately and read Svensmark's original peer reviewed article that studies the effect of shining UV radiation into a chamber and how new aerosol particles are produced. But note - in his study is no atmospheric modelling, historical measurements of cosmic rays or solar magnetic fields. In fact, not a peep about climate change or global warming to be found in the study.
But what Svensmark did next was release a non-peer reviewed "press release" after the original article was published. It makes a huge leap from the original study's conclusions to a cause of global warming, bypassing a number of causality steps required to prove the link. The clincher for me is that observed levels of cosmic rays haven't actually decreased over the last 50 years. It concludes with the grandiose conclusion - "The recent discovery by our team in Copenhagen of the chemical mechanism of cosmic-ray action on cloud formation thus brings to a climax a scientific quest that has lasted two centuries."
It's this type of misleading scientific process that annoys me. And what really pains me is when others quote his "research" like its direct proof. It's misleading and unethical on the part of the scientist. Note - there's an interesting technical analysis of Svensmark's press release - in particular, in the comments, there's a reply (if you believe it) from one of the PhD students who worked with Svensmark who defends some of the work while agreeing with some of the critique's conclusions.
Kristen Byrnes I have a few d
May 26, 2007 - 23:05 ET by Kristen ByrnesKristen Byrnes
I have a few disagreements with what John wrote above. Two of his statements are misleading due to incompleteness and information needs to be added.
The clouds and cosmic rays or what is now called “Cosmoclimatology” theory is not limited to the experiment that he mentions. Svensmark and 50 other scientists attended the “SKY” experiment. This experiment added scientific evidence to observations that were previously made by satellites where tropical low clouds changed with the amount of cosmic rays. This is modulated by solar activity. There is a graph on my page in the “Factors Affecting Global Temperature” section that was from the satellite study that Mr. Cook did not mention. The hypothesis came first, and then was backed up by satellite observations that were then backed up by the Sky (lab) Experiment. The scientists will be gathering later this year to try to model the phenomena. All of this scientific information has caused the rhetoric against this effect to change from not being real to being very small. The effect is to increase low tropical clouds by 2 to 3 percent. This is not a big deal until you consider that this amount of change in the climate system is equivalent to almost all of the warming that is calculated by greenhouse gases. The amount of temperature change from year to year from this effect will depend on further study. It will probably be lower because while clouds reflect sunlight during the day, they also trap heat at night.
One of the graphs that Mr. Cook links shows the surface temperature increasing over time while cosmic rays flux at a constant rate. This is correct except that he does not consider that the temperature is greatly affected by the warming oceans in this time period, something you would expect from the 11,000 year solar high that is now leveling off and going down a little. Coincidentally, the ENSO and global temperatures are also leveling off and going down a little. The oceans hold a lot of energy and it takes a lot of time for them to warm up or cool down.
Another point that he makes is that one of the PhD students did not agree with everything in the press release. First, no one in science gives weight to press releases. Second, no scientist agrees totally with other scientists.
Mr. Cook also provided a link to a website called “RealClimate, Climate Science By Climate Scientists.” I have read many of their articles and have noticed many problems. These are very smart guys and their rhetoric is very clever. After reading this site many times and giving them fair consideration, I have concluded that they are not the climate scientists they claim to be, but rather they are political activists with physics degrees. To be fair, some are more so than others.
I suppose it is okay to complain about a press release on a site about media bias, but I think we need to tell all of the facts.
Kristen, Not only to you have
May 26, 2007 - 23:10 ET by BlondeKristen, Not only to you have all of your facts in order, you lay them out with the logical precision of a true debater.
You, young lady, are an inspiration to us all.
Finally, your conclusion is spot on.
Excellent work.
I suppose it is okay to compl
May 26, 2007 - 23:19 ET by bigtimerI suppose it is okay to complain about a press release on a site about media bias, but I think we need to tell all of the facts.
Indeed we do Kristen.
Kristen, You give the RealCli
May 27, 2007 - 01:22 ET by NL207Kristen, You give the RealClimate guys a little more credit than they deserve. Not all of them have degrees in physics. Look down the list of contributors on their front page. It's in the sidebar on the right under "Contributors". There are only 11 listed. Google their credentials. You will see they are not at all physicists.
Gavin Schmidt: "He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London " Is a mathematician.
Michael Mann: Ph.D. "Dr. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale Universityin Geology & Geophysics from Yale University" Is actually a Geologist in his advanced degree. He is no more a physicist than I am.
Eric Stieg: "He received a BA from Hampshire College at Amherst, MA, and M.S. and PhDs in Geological Sciences at the University of Washington" A Geologist.
William Connolley: "Connolley holds a Bachelor of Arts in mathematics and Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Oxford for his work on numerical analysis" A Mathematician
Raymond S. Bradley: "Ph.D. 1974, M.A., 1971 University of Colorado, Boulder. B.Sc. 1969 University of Southampton, England" He does not give his field!
Stefan Rahmstorf: "A physicist and oceanographer by training" Not even his university bio-page gives his actual degrees. [he is German, German trained. given his position, Professor in a German University, he must have a Doctoral equivalent] Unknown
Rasmus Benestad: "D.Phil in physics Oxford University"
Caspar Ammann: "Dr. Ammann got his B.S. from Gymnasium Koeniz (Switzerland), his M.S. from the University of Bern (Switzerland), and a Ph.D. from the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts" A geologist
Thibault de Garidel: "Bachelor’s degree in Earth Sciences from the Université Lyon I, France, completed a Master in the Université Bordeaux I, France and a Ph.D. in Geosciences at CEREGE, Université Paul Cézanne (a.k.a. Aix-Marseille III). " Another geologist
David Archer: "University of Washington, Ph.D., 1990 " This is another guy who doesn't want to tell you what he majored in.
Ray Pierrehumbert: "He received an A.B. degree in Physics from Harvard, was then a Knox Fellow in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University, and completed his PhD on hydrodynamic stability theory at MIT, in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics" His Phd is in course XVI! Aero & Astro.
There is only one true physicist in the lot. Most of them are in the Geologic Sciences. 3 of them don't care to divulge their training fully.
Kristen Byrnes That seems fai
May 27, 2007 - 09:20 ET by Kristen ByrnesKristen Byrnes
That seems fair, so I will change that to political activists with science degrees.
As opposed to political activ
June 11, 2007 - 14:09 ET byAs opposed to political activists without science degrees?
While I disagree with many of
May 30, 2007 - 03:16 ET by liberal_bug_zapperWhile I disagree with many of the conclusions that those guys make on RealClimate.org, I'll have to say that Geological Science is one of the better determinants of climate in the past..... that is, if they are honest about what they find.
____________________________________________________
"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future. " ~ Niels Bohr
RealClimate
May 30, 2007 - 03:52 ET by Cool ArrowWhere do you think the Government grants come from? Trust nothing they say and nothing none of their 'proofs'.
Anything Coming from the greenie suckups not glorifying Gore won't make MSM anyhow.
Gore lied. Nobody fried
John Cook,Svensmark is not th
May 27, 2007 - 00:15 ET by NL207John Cook,
Svensmark is not the only author promoting this theory. Jan Veizer has also published ideas along the same vein.
If these people are not correct [and their views are, as the AGW view, only theory], then there is STILL the unexplained very strong correlation between sunspot activity and warm years observed since we've been able to measure both with reasonable accuracy, about 1850. The AGW crowd have no convincing explanations for this either and the observed phenonma is simply too strong to be dismissed as coincidence. To my way of thinking there must be a connecting mechanism that has not yet been explained.
there is something I want you to explain, something that is a must for you to continue to buy into the AGW proposition. In an earlier thread, you presented in detail an accouning of CO2 flow within the Earth system defined by an envelope around the Earth's outer atmosphere. In this budget, you observed that the annual human production of CO2 is dwarfed by the natural CO2 produced and consumed by the oceans, biosphere and geosphere of the Earth. If these budgets are accurate, then why do you think the relatively small amount of CO2 produced by human activity seems to be accumulating in the atmospher instead of participating in these natural processes?
Feel free to post these values here again and source them if you will.
And feel free to give yourself a credibility boost: Don't link those propagandists at Realclimate any more. I simply do not believe it when THEY claim cosmic rays have increased, decreased or stayed the same over the last N years. Go back to the original source material. It should be available, at least by title an journal. As I pointed out to belag, I have no trouble getting these within a reasonable amount of time.
Carbon cycle
May 27, 2007 - 22:36 ET by John CookThat carbon cycle budget I posted earlier was sourced from the New Scientist website. Curiously that page has gone offline but you make a good point about quoting sources so I dug deeper and found a more rigorous summary of carbon cycle figures, citing all sources, in the 2001 IPCC report (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm). The figures are measured in petagrams carbon/year and paint a similar picture of manmade CO2 upsetting the natural balance of CO2 emissions and absorption. Vegetation and soils emit 119pgc/yr and absorb 120pgc/yr. The ocean emits 88pgc/yr and absorbs 90pgc/yr. Manmade CO2 emissions are 6.3pgc/yr. About half the human CO2 emissions are absorbed by the oceans.
To be honest, I'm surprised you bring this up (although I appreciate the point of not taking second hand info for granted). Natural CO2 levels have fluctuated over the years, sometimes as far as 100ppm. However, these kind of natural changes take 5,000 to 20,000 years. In contrast, the recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years. I thought the main bone of contention among AGWers and skeptics is not rising CO2 levels but whether the rising CO2 is responsible for rising temperatures.
P.S. - I'll get back to you re sunspot activity as I have yet to read any related studies. It seems to come up a lot here so I'm sure there'll be other opportunities to discuss it.
The 2001 IPCC report is clear
May 28, 2007 - 02:31 ET by NL207The 2001 IPCC report is clearly the more trustworthy of the two most recenrt reports. I am shocked to the degree which obvious politicians have taken over a bodty that used to be dominated by scientists.
The data as reported don't deal with CO2 directly. They deal with carbon. Carbon participates in a lot of other substances besides CO2. This is silly if it is presumed that CO2 is the greenhouse pollutant. You don't think there is a problem with this?
I should think there are two significant questions about human generated CO2: (1) Is the greenhouse effect it produces significant and (2) Is it demonstrably harmful in the context of other natural processes. The second issue is especially sticky. For sake of argument, let's assume that human CO2 IS significant. If the earth were on the verge of entering another ice age, as many geologists claim will occur in the near geologic future, and this human generated CO2 were sufficient to blunt or even prevent this new ice age, a great many people would see this as a boon, not a problem. Another facet of this question deals with food production. More warmth means more vegetative growth. More CO2 ALSO means more yield. [Greenhouse produce growers routinely employ CO2 fertilization] Many people, particularly hungry ones, would see increased crop yields as a boon.
Here I am, rambling on, wee
May 28, 2007 - 03:11 ET by MilesDHere I am, rambling on, wee hours of a Sunday
Let's see. I'm 59. When I retire (assuming I am not senile - but how will I know???) I have two things planned.
- Rebuild a music box from my g g grandfather (1874 - from Switzerland - it's beautiful, have figured out great deal of the harmonics. NOT at all a chromatic scale!!!)
- Write a book. Non fiction. The planned title is, "How three and one half hundredths of a volume percent of an oxide of carbon with a standard free energy of formation high enough so that combustion in an oxidizing atmosphere of sp2 oriented hydrocarbons yielded more convenient heat than any other easily available molecular compounds of the 5b or 6b elements resulted in the polarization of people of the planet, the annual expenditure of the entire gross domestic products of sixth world ranking economies to curtail one fiftieth of that oxide known to be in equilibrium with inorganic surface carbonate at one atmosphere, elevated to positions of leadership individuals with no prior distinguished accomplishments, inspired a music industry, provided a new measure of scientific literacy according to the degee of belief of an infrared photo excitation energy exceeding ten thousand times the specific heat at constant pressure of the substance within a range of twenty Kelvins, and virtually led to a world war"
(Wonder if my publisher would make me shorten the title.
Wonder if my publisher would make me reclassify it as "fiction")
I just re-read this in disb
May 28, 2007 - 03:38 ET by MilesDI just re-read this in disbelief
I am convinced: I am already senile
1.) Be prepared - most msm
May 28, 2007 - 11:10 ET by dahliatravers1.) Be prepared - most msm outlets will petulantly refuse to review your book (until it makes the top ten bestseller list).
2.) The people who introduce you and your book (title) on your book tour will have a real job on their hands.
Most MSM outlets will petul
May 28, 2007 - 12:33 ET by lnthompMost MSM outlets will petulantly refuse to review the book EVEN IF it is a number-one seller, and if they do review it they will point out how much better "An Inconvenient Truth" is in every particular without regard to any facts.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
Dahlia, People interviewing
May 28, 2007 - 20:15 ET by MilesDDahlia,
People interviewing me would have more problem with the author than the book, dealing with unwanted or bizarre behavior such as :
- Stamping feet for no apparent reason
- Ignoring questions asked, and proceding into tirades about other things such as "How in God's name did Albert get at far as he did in his life? How could anybody possibly have voted for him? Don't people see him as the biggest fraud since Ponzi? Are people really that gullable???"
- Giving advice on how to run a network
- Accusing them of being "traitors"
Have you considered scotch as
May 28, 2007 - 11:50 ET by NL207Have you considered scotch as a treatment for this problem?
bgdif zhg somethinggrsru...
May 28, 2007 - 12:39 ET by MilesDbgdif zhg something
grsru
... huh?
I'll get back to you re sunsp
May 28, 2007 - 22:25 ET by dahliatraversI'll get back to you re sunspot activity
Do please also get back to us, Mr. Cook, on how we are supposed to stop AGW if the soon to be biggest CO2 contributor, as well as numerous smaller contributors, do not participate in the solution.
And while you're at it, I would appreciate the answer to a corollary question asked of me yesterday at a cookout: if man contributes less than 6% of greenhouse gases, how much is he going to have to do, to sacrifice, to slow or stop global warming?
(These questions assume that the theory of AGW is correct.)
Sooner rather than later, if you can. The Speaker of the House has just breathessly, if a little belatedly, arrived on the global warming scene, and this is information she will certainly need.
Dahlia, somehow, there has
May 28, 2007 - 23:07 ET by MilesDDahlia, somehow, there has to be a logical end to setting forth further evidence that humans could even possibly have any measurable influence on the climate.
Where does one draw the line? I don't know myself, but the below would seem to convincing enough evidence that humans couldn't do it if they wanted to.
Where it stops I don't know, what kind of jury do we need?
Win Win Win
Contest!
Win $100 from me
(for real, and I certainly won't back off in public like this)
For anyone who demonstrate to me any of the following:
- Sunspot activity extending within 2 years of known 11 year cycles (forward and back, the whole thing is 22 years obviously)
- Measured solar output increased or decreased extended anything over 1 month for any variation within 5% above one solar constant of 1kw/sq m (normalized to the geographic region for time and lattitude)
- Human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is within 10% of the total CO2 that comes from all INORGANIC carbonate, untouched (that is, people are certainly slaking lime all the time and so on, this means, the carbonate that nobody has used to make CO2 or calcium oxide)
- All other US greenhouse gases that are produced by humans, or associated with human activity (such as methane from farming, or from decomposition of waste that would NOT be there unless there was human intervention), as well as tropospheric ozone from higher oxides of nitrogen, the oxides of nitrogen themselves, refrigerants, propellants, refinery gases, methane vented from mines purposfully, other compounds with industrial use such as sulfur hexaflouride), and all else
- exceed the total greenhouse gas contribution of natural methane and natural nitrous oxide sources
Awesome, Miles. If you're s
May 29, 2007 - 07:16 ET by dahliatraversAwesome, Miles. If you're serious, please also put this contest on the next global warming post (as not everyone may see it here).
kudos to another enlightened youth
May 24, 2007 - 10:46 ET by LionKingKUDOS!!! There is some hope for our future with enlightened youths like Kristen Byrnes!!!
Noel, I know it was mentioned before, but can Newsbusters create some kind of scholarship for such deserving kids. I would be willing to contribute and I know others have expressed a similar interest.
LK
May 24, 2007 - 10:49 ET by Noel SheppardLK,
Looking into it. ns
Please count me in too."
May 24, 2007 - 15:15 ET by BuffNBonePlease count me in too.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
LionKing,That's a hell of a g
May 24, 2007 - 15:29 ET by Dave RLionKing,
That's a hell of a good idea.
Dave R ... not my idea
May 24, 2007 - 18:54 ET by LionKingDave R...not my idea ... I think it was MisterBill...I do not remember. I just mentioned it again to Noel because I still think it is a great idea.
Now - if she were a citizen a
May 24, 2007 - 10:47 ET by FastEdNow - if she were a citizen and a little older, she'd get my vote for the first woman pres. Noel, tell her that she is smart beyond her years and the IQ of the environmental wakos, altogether, doesn't come within half of hers.
To our so-called "journalists" - see what happens when a little research and common sense is put together? The msm (Lsm) will never get it - they're not smart enough, yet the folks who listen to them have yet to learn that.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Ah Kristen,Just another victi
May 24, 2007 - 10:48 ET by LeonAh Kristen,
Just another victim of that liberal, public school education.
actually...probably an overcomer
May 24, 2007 - 10:57 ET by LionKingActually, she probably chose to engage in critical thinking ( try it, you might like it) and was able to overcome the bondage of liberlaism prevalent in public schools.
Leon (Trotsky?)
May 27, 2007 - 01:37 ET by Dave Rtry it, you might like it
Lion King,
If Leon (Trotsky?) here were to engage in an act of critical thinking, he would most assuredly injure himself.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz
Your sarcasm is illogical, Leon
May 24, 2007 - 10:58 ET by RJYour sarcasm is illogical, Leon, but that's not surprising. You know nothing about that particular school or her teacher. It's just as possible she rose up in spite of the school.
RJ,May we assume that if her
May 24, 2007 - 14:33 ET by msh1973RJ,
May we assume that if her conclusions were those that supported global warming liberals would be singing her praises? Just a thought.
msh...Hi...not answering for
May 24, 2007 - 14:38 ET by bigtimermsh...
Hi...not answering for RJ but she would be on every single show 24/7.
I read her essay last week. M
May 24, 2007 - 10:57 ET by bassndudeI read her essay last week. Marvelous young lady, extremely bright. Her research was well done and she has the ability to put all this information to work in the right way. I do envy her some. Wish my mind was that sharp. My files are all jumbled up. The MSM will never pick up on this youngster. She would make them all look like idiots. Maybe Brett Hume or one of the FOX people will pick up on this. Would make a great Sunday interview for Chris M., lol..would love to see that one.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Response from Al Gore---to Kristen--
May 24, 2007 - 11:06 ET by misterbillResponse from Al Gore---to Kristen--
"go to your room young lady. How could you possibly know more than my cohorts?"
Aside to his staff: "that young lady will cost us millions. We won't get the grants."
My kudo's to this young lad
May 24, 2007 - 11:08 ET by bobthemanMy kudo's to this young lady and the unsung heroes... her parents. They've obviously provided an environment that fosters this kind of curiosity and educational development. Would love to see more of this.
She acutally goes out and does the research instead of blindly following the child lemmings of the cultural liberal elite.
While she done good, I just h
May 24, 2007 - 11:43 ET by ThisnThatWhile she done good, I just hope she doesn't try to use this experience to produce a study paper in school. She'll get an "F", and likely be expelled.
"El Nino" is Spanis
May 24, 2007 - 11:48 ET by BeanMan"El Nino" is Spanish for "The Nino" (h/t to Chris Farley rip)
Very smart for a 15 year old.
May 24, 2007 - 14:14 ET by chessplayerVery smart for a 15 year old. I`m in the process of reading her website and came across this on page 3;
"Also, some have tried to say that CO2 has caused temperature changes during this time; not true. "... new high-resolution studies show that at times of cold to warm transitions, temperature changes come first, leading CO2 changes by several centuries (Mudelsee, 2001; Clark, 2003; Vakulenko et al., 2004). If so, the CO2 levels would be response to, and not a cause of, the change in temperature (climate). CO2 may then serve as a temperature amplifier, but not as the climate driver."
Seems to me AGW`ers will latch on to that last sentence as an excuse to curtail man-made CO2.
First of all, thank you for t
May 27, 2007 - 08:50 ET by dahliatraversFirst of all, thank you for taking the time to read and analyze this stuff for yourself.
AGW'ers will latch on to that last sentence as an excuse to curtail man-made CO2.
Chessplayer, that last sentence is also in a RealClimate article, the website that defends AGW. This makes it all the more marvelous because that fact actually decimates the case for AGW.
The theory of AGW is that man is directly causing global warming with the CO2 he is contributing to the atmosphere. But if CO2 is only an amplifier, not a driver, as RealClimate has stated, man has been completely exonerated as an agent of global warming.
The awful thing is that kid
May 24, 2007 - 14:30 ET by MilesDThe awful thing is that kids in the US are given no more "science" education than Albert's nitwit theater, so if any child wanted to debate her, they would look like an imbecile.
But to win the debate, all that is needed is to pull out some polar bear pictures and some tears, case closed.
On Tuesday, Riled One propose
May 24, 2007 - 15:11 ET by BuffNBoneOn Tuesday, Riled One proposed the name Public Relations Arm of the Vitriolic Democrap A paratus to refer to the MSM.
For reports about global warming and similar topics, I believe this one, Indoctrinating Sensitive Voting Environmentalists Specifically Totally Ignorant Americans fits better.
As the Soviet citizens came to understand, the "Truth is not the News" and the "News is not the Truth."
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
Yeah, but in the case of th
May 24, 2007 - 15:50 ET by MilesDYeah, but in the case of the Soviet Commies, they had an excuse - the party bosses enforced it.
But here - the media itself enforces it - along with the school districts, the school administrators, the Unitarian Church, the Sierras, and a lot of others. There is no one speaking out about it!!!
marvl Says: "Your comments a
May 24, 2007 - 14:49 ET by Sonny Lykosmarvl Says: "Your comments about the media are dead-on. In addition to opinion mongers, the MSM today is more entertainment than journalism."
Actually, the SM today is NOT entertainment, but subtle and not so sutle brainwasahing and indoctrination. And that's scary because for the masses, it's working.
I wonder if she will get a fu
May 24, 2007 - 14:49 ET by dscottI wonder if she will get a full science scholarship from some university??
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Kristen...your activities are
May 24, 2007 - 14:54 ET by TruthMattersKristen...your activities are an assualt on reason.
Wonderful story. I'm glad w
May 24, 2007 - 15:50 ET by SumricaWonderful story. I'm glad we have young folks like Kristen out there with an interest in science.
I sure hope this is indeed the beginning of the end for Australia's wrath of drought.
Absolutely brilliant!
May 24, 2007 - 16:55 ET by steviep831Absolutely brilliant!
Noel. I've been in and out fo
May 24, 2007 - 18:51 ET by danboNoel. I've been in and out for the last month. And haven't gone through all the old messages. (Here and other sources.) After Blonde mentioned her I had to look back to find her link. Did you originally find it where I think you found it? Or some place else?
Just curious before I look back in old messages.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
It looks like it was. I didn'
May 24, 2007 - 19:35 ET by danboIt looks like it was. I didn't realize Kristen was 15. Eduardo was the tip for me.
Kristen, if you read this. I bow to you. You show more scientific curiosity and more willingness to explore than any warmer I've seen. You're open to the mountains of data. And the integrity of real science. Where raw data is appreciated.
Keep going girl.
This insanity will soon end. (For you anyway.) But remember to be scepitical. Even with us. (Only a fool or a liar claims to know for sure what's the final answer.)
PS to Kristen. Ned and Bob deserve to be skewered.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Danbo
May 24, 2007 - 20:55 ET by Noel SheppardDan,
I was trying to figure this out this morning. I'm not sure where I came across KB. I believe I was researching another piece, and found her in a discussion group at one of the AGW message boards, but not the one you think.
Again, not completely sure.
Regardless, spoke to her and her stepfather today. Great people. ns
Kristen Byrnes It was funny.
May 26, 2007 - 21:43 ET by Kristen ByrnesKristen Byrnes
It was funny. I opened up a group email and Noel was asking, "Has anyone seen this 15 year old girl's website???" And all the guys were like, "that's her right there."
Anyways, before I comment on some of the responses above, I wanted to thank everyone for being so nice and for the nice comments.
Kristen...You go gal!You are
May 26, 2007 - 21:52 ET by bigtimerKristen...
You go gal!
You are something special...you give us hope out here in the real world that you are living in unlike some others...may there be many more like you up and coming.
I for one thank you!
KB
May 26, 2007 - 21:54 ET by Noel SheppardKris,
How's it going? Tell Mike I got his message regarding your increased web traffic. Obviously, I'm not surprised. :-)
Did he catch any lobsters yet this weekend? Any big ones?
Hope all is well. ns
Kristen Byrnes Hi Noel. He sa
May 26, 2007 - 23:59 ET by Kristen ByrnesKristen Byrnes
Hi Noel. He said the water is not warm enough so he was lazy and watched TV all day. LOL
KB
May 27, 2007 - 00:13 ET by Noel SheppardKris,
Water's not warm enough? That can't be. Somebody better tell Dr. Gore that the Northern Atlantic off the coast of Maine isn't warm enough yet for lobsters to be caught. This could destroy Memorial Day barbecues across the country, while disproving his specious theories!
I certainly hope this condition changes by the Fourth of July when I visit my folks in Massachusetts. Of course, as most people likely aren't aware, many of the lobsters that folks eat on the East Coast outside of Maine actually come from Canada, especially those over 2 1/2 pounds which is the legal harvesting limit in Maine.
As such, for most of us lobster lovers who appreciate the five and six-pound variety -- you know, the type where you can actually get a half-pound of meat out of the tail! -- we're actually eating Canadian hardshells, which are every bit as yummy as what Mike is catching, but, true to their namesake, require much more muscle to negotiate. :-) ns
Kristen,First of all, welcome
May 27, 2007 - 00:53 ET by Dave RKristen,
First of all, welcome to NewsBusters. As the resident government-school cynic around here (as I equate the act of packing a child off to a goverment school with child abuse) I must say that you have restored, to a certain degree, my faith in our young people. Most people I know in your age range are nothing more than pasty-faced X-Box zombies.
If, for any reason, your political incorrectness on this issue should somehow deny you a full scholarship to the institution of higher learning of your choice, and if the scholarship mentioned above does come to fruition, you most definitely have my vote. Furthermore, I think they should name said scholarship after you.
I will look forward to watching you leave our resident disciples of the very Reverend soon-to-be Dr. Gore's Church of Global Warming utterly speechless. Assuming, of course, that Al and his version of Himmler (that would be Frau Heidi Cullen over at The Propagan....I mean.... The Weather Channel, haven't managed to have you kidnapped and carted off to a re-education camp somewhere. :-O
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz
IPCC and Australian drought
May 27, 2007 - 03:55 ET by John CookGreat article and Kristen is an impressive kid (at 15, most of my thoughts and energies were devoted to trying to get a girlfriend). There's just one major flaw in your article - the IPCC never actually say the current Australian drought is a result of global warming. The IPCC report says "As a result of reduced precipitation and increased evaporation, water security problems are projected to intensify by 2030 in southern and eastern Australia". Eg - regardless of what's causing the drought now, global warming will cause or exacerbate drought within the next dozen years.
I happen to live in one of the areas affected by drought in Australia (Brisbane, Qld). One of the three water catchments that supply water in our area have just been closed as it's gotten too low so things are getting desperate - we haven't received the kind of rain the southern states were blessed with this week. Although it's based more on instinct than rigorous scientific research, my personal belief (and hope and prayer) is that the current Australian drought ISN'T caused by global warming but a natural cycle that will ease as El Nino eases.
But that doesn't change the fact that the globe continues to warm and if the trend continues, there will be more drought to look forward to.
John
May 27, 2007 - 10:40 ET by Noel SheppardJohn,
You've thoroughly misinterpreted this article. Kristen didn't say that the IPCC blamed the Aussie drought on global warming. She said that their predictions that global warming would extend and exacerbate the drought would prove wrong.
As for the earth continuing to warm, as we now are in our ninth consecutive cooler year than 1998, this claim is specious and devoid of facts. ns
As Belag has honored us with
May 27, 2007 - 09:12 ET by dahliatraversAs Belag has honored us with his presence, I take the opportunity to once again point out that man's contribution to greenhouse gases is quite small: .28% (less than one third of one percent) if water vapor is factored in, 5.53% if water vapor is excluded.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Kristen Byrnes Just to let yo
May 27, 2007 - 15:41 ET by Kristen ByrnesKristen Byrnes
Just to let you all know, my page has gone beyond the monthly traffic allowance and will be down til the end of the month.
Thanks for your insight
May 28, 2007 - 05:34 ET by Cool ArrowNice to meet someone whose mind is not yet overcome with fables.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
Excellent! Your site must
May 28, 2007 - 21:11 ET by dahliatraversExcellent! Your site must be getting some good traffic numbers, Kristen.
Keep up the great work on all fronts.
Update I have been in corre
May 30, 2007 - 10:06 ET by MilesDUpdate
I have been in correspondence with a group of research scientists in Austrailia and New Zealand, who are coordinating a response to the Austrailian government regarding the flase information that has been disseminated regarding "climate change".
This report to the Autrailian govenment is similar to a report I have discussed that has been coordinated by Senator Inhofe regarding scientific inaccuracy that has been published in the media, science publishing, and elsewhere.
The Austrialians were proud of the work the young lady has done, and they were surprised to learn that the US was actually aware before they were! Meaning the manstream media in Austrailia is as tilted as in the US.
I won't discuss the Austrailian scientific climatology group and their work here but will respond to messages
Oh, Noel.
June 11, 2007 - 14:19 ET byNoel,
Did you even notice that as you bolded all of those IPCC quotes they were talking about 2030?
Thanks for the laugh, though.