“Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 4.

Posted on June 21, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

This post is directed at the ABC News (Aus), ‘Drum Opinion’ post of the same name! Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2761976.html

The foregoing comments in previous parts apply to funding and other influences.   It is also appropriate to iterate that addressing one side of an issue is not “clearing up the debate “, which is why this blog is attempting to address the “other side”.

“CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Director of the Melbourne Energy Institute and Professor of Geology Mike Sandiford explores the staggering ways we influence the shape of the globe.”

Mike presents a comprehensive article relating heating energy warming of our planet to CO2 forcing – e.g.,

The radiative forcing of a doubling of CO₂ is about 1300 trillion watts – or 28 times the energy released by plate tectonics.

And we are well on the way to doubling CO₂. In the past hundred years we have added almost 40%, and warming that can only plausibly be attributed to a greenhouse effect is not only heating the atmosphere, but is also pumping heat into the oceans and the crust at a phenomenal rate.

And here am I faithfully espousing other theories about CO2 being the quantity of a trace element (0.04%) and a minor green house gas component. If I can’t come up with a  reasonable backing for the “deniers” I am in deep trouble. Of course, I can only rely on other’s expertise and knowledge.

Other sources:

 CO2 Science, presents another scenario, Firstly this video:

http://youtu.be/z685n4RMx6Y

http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf

Carbon Dioxide and Earth’s Future,  Persuing the Prudent Path. by Craig D. Idso and Sherwood B. Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Reference p6:  Graph available on the website above.

The claim:

With respect to air temperature, the climate-alarmist contention is multifaceted. It is claimed that over the past several decades: (a) earth’s temperature has risen to a level that is unprecedented over the past millennium or more, (b) the world has been warming at a rate that is equally unprecedented, and (c) both of these dubious achievements have been made possible by the similarly unprecedented magnitude of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, due to humanity’s ever-increasing burning of fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil.

With respect to the level of warmth the earth has recently attained, it is important to see how it compares with prior temperatures experienced by the planet, in order to determine the degree of “unprecedentedness” of its current warmth.

Taking a rather lengthy view of the subject, Petit et al. (1999) found that peak temperatures experienced during the current interglacial, or Holocene, have been the coldest of the last five interglacials, with the four interglacials that preceded the Holocene being, on average, more than 2°C warmer (see figure at right). And in a more recent analysis of the subject, Sime et al. (2009) suggested that the “maximum interglacial temperatures over the past 340,000 years were between 6.0°C and 10.0°C above present-day values.” If anything, therefore, these findings suggest that temperatures of the Holocene, or current interglacial, were indeed unusual, but not unusually warm. Quite to the contrary, they have been unusually cool..

But could the higher temperatures of the past four interglacials have been caused by higher CO2 concentrations due to some non-human influence? Absolutely not, for atmospheric CO2 concentrations during all four prior interglacials never rose above approximately 290 ppm; whereas the air’s CO2  concentration today stands at nearly 390 ppm.

Combining these two observations, we have a situation where, compared with the mean conditions of the preceding four interglacials, there is currently 100 ppm more CO2 in the air than there was then, and it is currently more than 2°C colder than it was then, which adds up to one huge discrepancy for the world’s climate alarmists and their claim that high atmospheric CO2 concentrations lead to high temperatures. The situation is unprecedented, all right, but not in the way the public is being led to believe.

This website presents volumes of relevant information, completely contradicting the Mike Sandiford article.

Looking for more:

Another seemingly valid point of view is presented here:

 http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx/MenuItemID/73/MenuGroup/Home.htm

Including an impressive list of qualified persons (over 31,000) signing a petition to support CO2 being a minor factor.

So there is plenty of conflicting information providing good support for both sides. Could Mike possibly be wrong?

The following information from ‘Climate4You’ provides a scenario which might explain why Mike hasn’t got it quite right.

Diagram showing the GISS monthly global surface air temperature estimate (blue) and the monthly atmospheric CO2 content (red) according to the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. The Mauna Loa data series begins in March 1958, and 1958 has therefore been chosen as starting year for the diagram. Reconstructions of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations (before 1958) are not incorporated in this diagram, as such past CO2 values are derived by other means (ice cores, stomata, or older measurements using different methodology), and therefore are not directly comparable with modern atmospheric measurements. The dotted grey line indicates the approximate linear temperature trend, and the boxes in the lower part of the diagram indicate the relation between atmospheric CO2 and global surface air temperature, negative or positive. Last month shown: May 2011 (CO2) and May 2011 (GISS). Last diagram update: 19 June 2011.

  Most climate models assume the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide CO2 to influence significantly upon global temperature. It is therefore relevant to compare different temperature records with measurements of atmospheric CO2, as shown in the diagrams above. Any comparison, however, should not be made on a monthly or annual basis, but for a longer time period, as other effects (oceanographic, etc.) may well override the potential influence of CO2 on short time scales such as just a few years. It is of cause equally inappropriate to present new meteorological record values, whether daily, monthly or annual, as support for the hypothesis ascribing high importance of atmospheric CO2 for global temperatures. Any such short-period meteorological record value may well be the result of other phenomena.

What exactly defines the critical length of a relevant time period to consider for evaluating the alleged importance of CO2 remains elusive, and is still a topic for debate. The critical period length must, however, be inversely proportional to the temperature sensitivity of CO2, including feedback effects, such as assumed by most standard climate models. 

After about 10 years of global temperature increase, IPCC was established in 1988. Presumably, several scientists interested in climate then felt intuitively that their empirical and theoretical understanding of climate dynamics was sufficient to conclude about the importance of CO2 for global temperature. However, for obtaining public and political support for the CO2-hyphotesis the 10 year warming period leading up to 1988 in all likelihood was important. Had the global temperature instead been decreasing, public support for the hypothesis would have been difficult to obtain. Adopting this approach as to critical time length, the varying relation (positive or negative) between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 has been indicated in the lower panels of the diagrams above.

Click here to read a few reflections on the relation between global temperature and the amount of atmospheric CO2. 

So the next question is – is Mike’s assessment of the forcing ‘factor’ an agreed figure?

Then, there is a need to verify the original ‘historic’ CO2/ global temperature relationship as current and valid.  Arthur Woodward as a reference is slightly in question, firstly science then was a far cry from current knowledge, secondly (below the belt),  “Woodward’s reputation suffered from his involvement in the Piltdown Man hoax”.

For the sake of this exercise, there is enough doubt regarding the CO2 forcing for it not to be taken for granted.

Post publish revision – an important addition:

“The science:

But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas. [emphasis mine]

But it didn’t increase the height of the moist air around the planet as subsequent studies have shown since that time. However, that theory or premise became the heart of the modeling that was done by the alarmist crowd.”

(The whole article is covered in my post  Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science

[Iterating: By all means control pollution if it provides cleaner air for man, animals and all biological welfare. But forget about CO2 being a pollutant.  It is likely that BP’s Mexican Gulf pollution, the current increased volcanic emissions, together with Japan’s TEPCO’s ionising radiation are, by orders of magnitude, a greater concern than CO2. 

Carbon trading has yet to be proved necessary and the motivation has yet to be made clear to the public.

This post is obviously not a complete, scientific treatise on the subject. It is however, a guide to the reader to indicate that the ‘warmist’ papers are not to be taken at face value. They need to be analysed and proven to be above question before acceptance, because they are agenda-driven and might cost you your lifestyle and maybe even your freedom.]

The other series articles will be addressed, in turn.

Comments on “open letter” are Part 1: “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 1.

Comments on “greenhouse effect” are Part 2: “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 2.

Comments on “alarmist AGW views justified” are Part 3:   “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 3.

Related articles
Posted in climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Justice, Media, Nature, New World Order, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Fukushima: Radioactive Strontium dangers

Posted on June 21, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

The Fukushima 1 NPP

Image via Wikipedia

Natural News posts the following dire situation report:

(NaturalNews) Representing the first time the substance has been detected at the crippled plant, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) reported on Sunday that seawater and groundwater samples taken near the ravaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power facility in Japan have tested positive for radioactive strontium. And according to a recent report in The Japan Times, levels of strontium detected were up to 240 times over the legal limit, indicating a serious environmental and health threat.

Radioactive strontium, which is known to accumulate in bones and eventually lead to diseases like cancer and leukemia, is one of at least three “hot particles” being continually released by the damaged plant, according to experts. The others include radioactive cesium and plutonium, both of which are implicated in causing birth defects, cancer, and death.

“We are discovering hot particles everywhere in Japan, even in Tokyo,” said Arnold Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president with 39 years of nuclear engineering experience, to Al Jazeera. “Scientists are finding these everywhere. Over the last 90 days these hot particles have continued to fall and are being deposited in high concentrations. A lot of people are picking these up in car engine air filters.”

TEPCO has allegedly installed a new water decontamination system that it claims will eventually help filter dangerous radioactive isotopes from polluted water, and thus limit environmental and human exposure to the poisons. But that system has already run into several problems as flow rates have been lower than intended.

“Fukushima has three nuclear reactors exposed and four fuel cores exposed,” added Gundersen. “You probably have the equivalent of 20 nuclear reactor cores because of the fuel cores, and they are all in desperate need of being cooled, and there is no means to cool them effectively.”

Al Jazeera also reports that a nuclear waste advisor to the Japanese government recently explained that roughly 966 square kilometers (km), or 600 square miles, around Fukushima are now uninhabitable due to the unfolding disaster. This massive dead zone area is the equivalent size of 17 Manhattans placed next to each other.

Sources for this story include:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-…

http://english.aljazeera.net/indept…

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032751_Fukushima_strontium.html#ixzz1Prs2LC3X

Related articles
Posted in ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, nuclear | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

“Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 3.

Posted on June 21, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

This post is directed at the ABC News (Aus), ‘Drum Opinion’ post of the same name! Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2761976.html

Here we deal with “Speaking science to climate policy” by James Risbey, Researcher, Marine and Atmospheric Research at CSIRO.

Reference ‘The Conversation’ website: Part Three: Speaking science to climate policy.

The foregoing comments in previous parts apply to funding and other influences.  James admits that he receives funding from CSIRO and from various government R&D funding schemes.  It is also appropriate to iterate that addressing one side of an issue is not “clearing up the debate “, which is why this blog is attempting to address the “other side”.

“CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: CSIRO’s James Risbey explains why it’s not “alarmist” to describe the threat of climate change to the public and how the climate system will respond to half measures.”

Reference James’ comments:

“With many issues to be considered in setting a climate policy one can end up wondering what the role of climate science is in all this.”  Initially we start with an agenda to set a policy, thus the reason for the policy is established. The agenda exists, it is based on the idea that CO2 controls are needed. This is not clearing up the debate, this is assuming the debate is settled. Well may James ask what the role of climate science is, when the decision has been made and  the science hasn’t been agreed to.

“Climatology can tell us, however, what is likely to happen if we don’t act, or if we don’t act with sufficient speed to keep total emissions within specific carbon allocations.”  This implies that climatology enables forecasting of future climatic conditions that is sufficiently accurate to act on, to attach an urgency level to and to base changes to, and control of, national and international economies.

” There is no single threshold above which climate change is dangerous and below which it is safe. There is a spectrum of impacts. But some of the largest impacts are effectively irreversible and the thresholds for them are very near.”  So it is claimed that climatology can, with relative confidence, define boundaries of climate parameters that result in thresholds for catastrophic and irreversable impacts.

“In particular, the melting and breakdown of polar ice sheets seems to be in the vicinity of a couple of degrees warming. This expectation is based on current high rates of mass loss from the ice sheets compared to relative stability through the Holocene (the past 10,000 years) and on past ice sheet response in periods such as the Pliocene (a few million years ago) when the Earth was a couple of degrees warmer than preindustrial times (and sea level up to 25m higher).”  For an assessment of this conclusion we need to call on other opinions. The following graphs are courtesy of http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

What I see from these is that each year there is a consistency of recurring levels occurring twice each year and some variations of maximums and minimums.  If there is a statistical decrease in ice levels that in any way relates to rising atmospheric CO2 levels, it is not obvious.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

Difficult to see any trend relating to serious melting of ice here.

The following graph adequately shows the flattening of the warming trend. A far cry from the IPCC projected upturn in warming, and proof that the modelling is a failure.

This graph courtesy – http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/the-unwarming-world/

Regarding the 2degC suggested “limit” as a goal, more needs to be said.

Global Warming proponents claim that this ‘imminent crisis’ will cause a massive rise in sea level which will drown many of the worlds largest cities and displace hundreds of millions of people. In his Academy Award winning ‘documentary’ Al Gore claimed that if either the West Antarctic Ice Shelf or the ice sheets around Greenland melt the mean global sea level will rise by 20 feet! Greenpeace claims that GW will “result in a catastrophic global sea level rise of 7 meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.”

Likewise the WWF claims“If the Greenland ice sheet melts, sea level could rise by as much 25 feet. Today there are 17 million people living less than one meter above sea level in Bangladesh, while places like Florida and Louisiana in the United States, Bangkok, Calcutta, Dhaka and Manila are also at risk from sea level rise.” This threat of ‘catastrophic sea level rise’ is a mantra constantly repeated by GW alarmists and forms the heart of their demand for urgent drastic action. But is this ‘threat’ well-founded or just fear-mongering by those pursing the Global Green Agenda? Below are a temperature graph and extracts from scientific papers and articles that provide a very interesting insight into the recent history of Greenland’s climate.

  

In AD 1000, the Earth was experiencing an episode of climate warming similar to that of the present day. Temperatures in many parts of the world seem to have risen by at least two or three degrees Fahrenheit. Although the scale of this “global warming” may seem small, its effects on human societies were profound. In Europe, several centuries of long hot summers led to an almost unbroken string of good harvests, and both urban and rural populations began to grow. These centuries are known as the Medieval Warm Period. One of the more dramatic consequences of the Medieval Warm Period was the expansion of Viking settlements in the North Atlantic. From their Icelandic base (established in AD 870), the Norse people began to move west and north to Greenland, Canada, and eventually above the Arctic Circle.
LINK

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm weather around 800-1300 AD, during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented. The Vikings took advantage of ice-free seas to colonize Greenland and other outlying lands of the far north.
LINK

“The climate at this time was very warm, much warmer than it is today, and crops were able to do well. It seems likely that the name “Greenland” was given to the country, not just as wishful thinking, but because it was a climatic fact at that time. The mild climatic period was fairly short-lived in geologic terms – by about 1200 AD, the ever-increasing cold was making life extremely difficult, and some years no supply ships were able to reach Greenland through the ice-choked seas. During this period, Norway had assumed responsibility for supplying the Norse settlers in Greenland, but as the climate worsened it became a very difficult task.
LINK

“At that time, the inner regions of the long fjords where the settlements where located were very different from today. Excavations show that there were considerable birch woods with trees up to 4 to 6 meters high in the area around the inner parts of the Tunuliarfik- and Aniaaq-fjords, the central area of the Eastern settlement, and the hills were grown with grass and willow brushes. This was due to the medieval climate optimum. The Norse soon changed the vegetation by cutting down the trees to use as building material and for heating and by extensive sheep and goat grazing during summer and winter. The climate in Greenland was much warmer during the first centuries of settlement but became increasingly colder in the 14th and 15th centuries with the approaching period of colder weather known as the Little Ice Age.”
LINK

The Medieval Warm Period coincides with the Vikings’ settlement of Greenland, Iceland and possibly North America. Farmsteads with dairy cattle, pigs, sheep and goats were prevalent in Iceland and along the southern coast of Greenland. Even England was able to compete economically with France in wine production. On the other hand, agriculture steadily declined at higher latitudes during the Little Ice Age, while mortality rates and famines increased. By 1500, settlements in Greenland had vanished and the inhabitants of Iceland were struggling to survive.
LINK


During the 9th & 10th centuries the Vikings reached Iceland and Greenland during the milder condition that prevailed during Medieval Warm Period. Norse settlers arrived in Iceland in the 9th and Greenland in the 10th century with an agricultural practice based on milk, meat and fibre from cattle, sheep, and goats. The settlers were attracted by green fields and a relatively good climate and driven there by population pressures in Scandinavia. They were able to sail to Iceland and Greenland as well as Labrador because of a decrease in sea ice in the North Atlantic.
LINK

This information from: http://green-agenda.com/greenland.html

There is little to be concerned about according to this. Certainly no indication anywhere about tipping points.  CO2  has risen well above the current levels or even projected levels in the distant past. Relativity to global temperature is variable.

Click the chart to learn more

http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2000/01/atmospheric-co2-over-time.html

I suggest that our climate issues are far more a matter of nature than mankind’s pollution or his attempts to understand, model and control them. Picking a 2degC rise as a potential tipping point for runaway or irreversable climate warming is a brave move, not supported sufficiently by scientific evidence of a conclusive nature.

By all means control pollution if it provides cleaner air for man, animals and all biological welfare. But forget about CO2 being a pollutant.  It is likely that BP’s Mexican Gulf pollution, the current increased volcanic emissions, together with Japan’s TEPCO’s ionising radiation are, by orders of magnitude, a greater concern than CO2. 

Carbon trading has yet to be proved necessary and the motivation has yet to be made clear to the public. I contend that it is “alarmist” to browbeat the public into actions that are not justifiable, not effective and that are seriously detrimental to public well-being.

This post is obviously not a complete, scientific treatise on the subject. It is however, a guide to the reader to indicate that the ‘warmist’ papers are not to be taken at face value. They need to be analysed and proven to be above question before acceptance, because they are agenda-driven and might cost you your lifestyle and maybe even your freedom.

The other series articles will be addressed, in turn.

Comments on “open letter” are Part 1: “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 1.

Comments on “greenhouse effect” are Part 2: “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 2.

Related articles
Posted in climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Justice, Media, Nature, New World Order, Politics | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

“Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 2.

Posted on June 19, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

This post is directed at the ABC News (Aus), ‘Drum Opinion’ post of the same name! Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2761976.html

Part 2 addresses the series article ” “The greenhouse effect is real: here’s why”

Reference: ‘The Conversation’ website “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 2.

CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Bureau of Meteorology scientist Karl Braganza explains why we know the climate is changing, and what’s causing it.

Karl is the Manager of  Climate Monitoring.  He has no affiliation with or funding from vested interests but his employer missions include ” Products and services are aligned with the needs of our stakeholders.”

The following also gives reason to doubt the claimed impartiality of the organizations’ making the case for AGW and the carbon tax: Ref:http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/professor-points-out-its-a-less-than-nobel-consensus/#more-14384

Guest Post by Garth Paltridge

We hear that Julia Gillard is happy to have the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Academy of Science on her side while making her arguments for a carbon tax.   Well of course she is.  She and her predecessor bought them.  And bought them but good.  Over the last couple of years her Department of Climate Change (the DCC) gave them 27 million dollars in the form of research grants.   That pays a fair swag of the salaries of the CSIRO and Bureau climate scientists who make up the majority of all employed climate scientists in Australia.

Reference some of Karl’s article:

“It would be easy to form the opinion that everything we know about climate change is based upon the observed rise in global temperatures and observed increase in carbon dioxide emissions since the industrial revolution.

In other words, one could have the mistaken impression that the entirety of climate science is based upon a single correlation study.

In reality, the correlation between global mean temperature and carbon dioxide over the 20th century forms an important, but very small part of the evidence for a human role in climate change.”

The above is really what it’s all about and is actually the truth.  (My bold emphasis). And yet, we are being asked to pay carbon taxes and potentially cripple our nation.

“Our assessment of the future risk from the continued build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is even less informed by 20th century changes in global mean temperature.”  A jump to GHG‘s in general and still only an assessment.

“For example, our understanding of the greenhouse effect – the link between greenhouse gas concentrations and global surface air temperature – is based primarily on our fundamental understanding of mathematics, physics, astronomy and chemistry.  

Much of this science is textbook material that is at least a century old and does not rely on the recent climate record.”  Nevertheless, or perhaps because the science is dated, the degree of what they call forcing is still a matter of argument in the science world. Relying on ‘old’ science theory is not recommended practice.

“For example, it is a scientific fact that Venus, the planet most similar to Earth in our solar system, experiences surface temperatures of nearly 500 degrees Celsius due to its atmosphere being heavily laden with greenhouse gases.”  To me, this is an unfortunate statement, the main reason for the high temperature is the planet being  closer to the Sun. (“108,200,000 km (0.72 AU) from Sun“, cf. Earth, “149,600,000 km (1.00 AU) from Sun“).

“Back on Earth, that fundamental understanding of the physics of radiation, combined with our understanding of climate change from the geological record, clearly demonstrates that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will inevitably drive global warming.”  This may be true, but the jury is out regarding the individual effect of CO2. Scientific assessments of the total GHG heating effect on Earth vary from 10degC to 30degC, and CO2 is a small part of total GHG’s. Variations due to relatively small CO2 level changes are not nearly as significant as claimed.

“Most importantly, the observations have confirmed that human activities, in particular a 40% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations since the late 19th century, have had a discernible and significant impact on the climate system already.”  Again, the jury is out on this claim of the CO2 increase having a ‘discernible and significant impact’. In fact, Karl himself, quoted above, says the CO2/temperature relationship is only a small part of the evidence for human role.

“These fingerprints show the entire climate system has changed in ways that are consistent with increasing greenhouse gases and an enhanced greenhouse effect. They also show that recent, long term changes are inconsistent with a range of natural causes.” Here again, we have the reversion to GHG’s as a total effect, forgetting that CO2 is a minor component. I question the validity of “recent, long term changes“, in the context of global climate, anything recent cannot be aptly called long term.

“A warming world is obviously the most profound piece of evidence.”

“Here in Australia, the decade ending in 2010 has easily been the warmest since record keeping began, and continues a trend of each decade being warmer than the previous, that extends back 70 years.”  Firstly, what the Australian records show might reflect global trends, but the records need to be accurate and then may not truly represent a global average. Secondly, records in the last few years can show a cooling trend. Methods of measurement are many and varied.  Annual average anomalies, even targeted at the same month each year are miniscule compared to daily and seasonal variations. It is possible to select sites and data processing methods to influence results enough to make published graphs and figures less than meaningful.  A look at this website “http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html” will show the complexity and difficulties in making earth-shattering conclusions.

“It is important to remember that the enhanced greenhouse effect is not the only factor acting on the climate system.

In the short term, the influence of greenhouse gases can be obscured by other competing forces.

These include other anthropogenic factors such as increased industrial aerosols and ozone depletion, as well as natural changes in solar radiation and volcanic aerosols, and the cycle of El Niño and La Niña events.”

In the above excerpt, again the truth emerges and actually contradicts the overall conclusions being made. I suggest that CO2 influences are completely obscured.

“By choosing a range of indicators, by averaging over decades rather than years, and by looking at the pattern of change through the entire climate system, scientists are able to clearly discern the fingerprint of human-induced change.” A monumental statement – choosing indicators, data processes and looking at patterns – will certainly enable the desired trends to be found, but to say ‘clearly discern human influence’ AND to associate CO2 with dangers to humanity are not supported by Karl’s article.

“It’s now practically certain that increasing greenhouse gases have already warmed the climate system.” But to what extent, with what end result? And to what extent will a carbon tax be meaningful?

“That continued rapid increases in greenhouse gases will cause rapid future warming is irrefutable.”  A brave statement, this claim and conclusion are not supported by his, or anyone else’s, submission.

I submit that the “case is not closed”.

The remaining series articles, will be addressed, in turn.

Comments on Part 1: “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 1.

Related articles
Posted in climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Justice, Media, Nature, New World Order, Politics | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

“Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 1.

Posted on June 18, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

This post is directed at the ABC News (Aus), ‘Drum Opinion’ post of the same name! Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2761976.html

Of course climate change is “happening”, this is a nonsensical statement. Never has it not been happening.

“Clearing up the Climate Debate” – This is begging the question. Offering a range of opinions from approved authors is hardly ‘clearing up’ anything. A debate has two sides, it cannot be cleared up by one side, resolving it requires an independent arbitrator. I haven’t spotted one yet.

“The majority of the world’s climate scientists agree: climate change is real, we are causing it and it’s happening right now.” An untrue statement! There is no majority of climate scientists agreeing on this issue.

That we are causing ‘it’, is being hotly disputed by scientists and other impartial, clear-thinking people around the world.

There is some justification for even doubting that global warming is a current trend.

There is considerable legitimate argument about the claimed degree of man-made GHG‘s on global temperature.

There is convincing evidence that atmospheric levels of CO2 are only remotely connected to global temperature.

There is definitely no general consensus on the claim that carbon controls will solve any global temperature problems.

 The open letter, attributed to several signatories and edited by Megan Clement, is full of rhetoric and bias.

To include the NASA photo and its title,  “It’s undeniable: our planet is changing”, is irrelevant to the argument and misleading to the reader. The fact that the planet is changing, is truly undeniable, but to link this to human activities is a deception.

“The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes.”  Not true.

“A vast number of scientists, engineers, and visionary businesspeople are boldly designing a future that is based on low-impact energy pathways and living within safe planetary boundaries; a future in which substantial health gains can be achieved by eliminating fossil-fuel pollution; and a future in which we strive to hand over a liveable planet to posterity.”  Now we come to the crux of the issue. This part is true, “boldly DESIGNING the future”, except the elimination of fossil fuel pollution is irrelevant, unless it is to adversely affect the general population.

“Aided by a pervasive media culture that often considers peer-reviewed scientific evidence to be in need of “balance” by internet bloggers, this has enabled so-called “sceptics” to find a captive audience while largely escaping scrutiny.”  Entirely untrue! The main stream media, in general, supports the so-called peer-reviewed “evidence”.  “Evidence” that is ‘pal-reviewed’ and certainly does need balance by ‘bloggers’, who are learning from scientists and others with ethics and morals; the audience, far from being captive, are actually intelligent, have freedom of choice, and are clear-thinking people getting plenty of scrutiny and plenty of scientific and anecdotal evidence contrary to the “pervasive media culture” of climate change alarm.

“We will show that “sceptics” often show little regard for truth and the critical procedures of the ethical conduct of science on which real skepticism is based.” Here we have a challenge. it is my belief that this statement is the antithesis of the actual situation. There are many examples of disregard for truth and ethics displayed by the IPCC and warmist fraternity, far more than on the ‘sceptics’ side.

Brave, to call eminent people wrong. Maybe foolish, too. But I stand by my understanding of all the evidence I have studied and the conclusions I have reached. There is no doubt that much evidence is available to ‘prove’ all sorts of scenarios, highlighting that no-one KNOWS for sure anything definite about the future, and proving that even the “known” evidence can not be absolute in making irrefutable conclusions about the future. However, I am convinced that the motives of the “alarmists” are agenda driven. I am comfortable with the belief that the motives of the “sceptics” are technically and morally supportable. I offer a previous post as meaningful  support to my point of view! 

https://tgrule.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/from-their-own-mouths-global-warming-is-a-fraud/

The other series articles will be addressed, in turn.

Related articles
Posted in climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Justice, Media, Nature, New World Order, Politics | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Bin Laden’s “crimes” put to rest, 9/11 not one of them!

Posted on June 18, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

Hamid Mir interviewing Osama bin Laden for Dai...

Image via Wikipedia

I have been remote from the PC and there is much to catch up on.

My main bitch is still the ‘carbon scam’ and it needs considerable work.

However, this post by ‘ABC News’ (Aus.) cannot be left un-noted.

Federal prosecutors have dropped charges against Osama bin Laden from attacks spanning more than a decade, officials said in court papers filed in US District Court in New York.

Charges included more than 200 counts of criminal activity such as murder, conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction against civilians and more.

US district judge Lewis Kaplan approved the request, which is a common procedure when the defendant dies.

The charges included bin Laden’s role in the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

None of the charges were related to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, which killed 3,000 people.

The court papers filed on Friday included a statement from a Justice Department official declaring detailed evidence that bin Laden was killed by US forces in a raid on May 2 in Pakistan.

The statement said DNA samples, facial recognition analysis and the confirmation of one of bin Laden’s wives all confirmed the identity of the Al Qaeda leader.

“These tests confirmed that the sample from the Abbottabad raid genetically matched the derived comprehensive DNA profile” for bin Laden, the official wrote in the statement.

“The possibility of a mistaken identification is approximately one in 11.8 quadrillion.”

Two relevant comments:

1. “None of the charges were related to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, which killed 3,000 people.”

Osama was never officially claimed to be the 9/11 planner or perpetrator. Therefore the so-called killing of ‘him’ and the hype by Obama was absolutely a load of crap. (Some-one else made the following comment – the difference in spelling of Osama and Obama is b-s. We all know what that stands for!)

2. “tests confirmed that the sample from the Abbottabad raid genetically matched the derived comprehensive DNA profile”  “derived comprehensive profile”  ???

I, for one, remain steadfast in my belief that, whatever bin Laden did, it did not include the 9/11 atrocities. Nor do I believe that there is any available evidence that the Abbottabad body was bin Laden’s. (Very clever CIA personnel able to do their own DNA profiling,  just being cynical, maybe they can).

Just what, exactly, was the significance of the raid and subsequent activities? Even if it was bin Laden, what has actually been achieved? The wars go on, in ever-increasing numbers and intensity. Al Qaeda, whatever “it” is, goes on. Terrorism still continues, by some Islamic militants and the US and CIA, not to mention NATO and Israel.

Related articles
Posted in 'WAR on(of) TERROR', 9/11 tragedy, Conspiracies, Justice, osama Bin Laden | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

AGW – An Educational Primer

Posted on June 8, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

Average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere...

Image via Wikipedia

I refer to an extremely impressive post, details as follows which I have adopted as part of my website page ‘Carbon Attack’. There, it is divided into sections taking the reader through the whole learning experience enabling just about all ages to understand the science. And I mean the real science.

This introduces a complete post with comprehensive coverage of the AGW scenario, obviously from the ‘disbeliever’s’ point of view but fair (IMHO).

Ref: The Middlebury Community Network  Editorial:

The Great Global Warming Hoax?     Editor’s Introductory Note: Our planet has been slowly warming since last emerging from the “Little Ice Age” of the 17th century, often associated with the Maunder Minimum.  Before that came the “Medieval Warm Period“, in which temperatures were about the same as they are today.  Both of these climate phenomena are known to have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, but several hundred years prior to the present, the majority of the Southern Hemisphere was primarily populated by indigenous peoples, where science and scientific observation was limited to non-existent.  Thus we can not say that these periods were necessarily “global”.

If you wish to view it on this blog, it is linked here.  This will start you on the article which contiues through via new links at the bottom of each page. Alternatively you can read each section separately by selecting ‘Carbon Attack’ on this home page, then “An Educational Primer’, then each Primer number in sequence, or not, to suit.

I cannot recommend it more highly. I guess I would prefer your using this link because I would get your responses. On the other hand, you might prefer to comment on the original site. Either way, please let me know what you think!

The original article is here.

 

Related articles
Posted in climate change, Conspiracies, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Justice, New World Order, Politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Fukushima update: Truth emerging!

Posted on June 7, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

Internationally recognized symbol.

Image via Wikipedia

Japan Finally Admits TOTAL Meltdown at 3 Nuclear Reactors Within Hours of Earthquake … And More Than DOUBLES Estimate of Radiation Released After Accident

 This headline and the following extracts are from ‘GeorgeWashington2.blogspot’, alerted by Sott.net

 For months, Tepco and Japanese officials refused to admit that there had been any meltdowns at Fukushima.

Then they said there were meltdowns at reactors 1, 2 and 3 … but they might have only been partial meltdowns.

Finally, today, they admitted the obvious: there were total meltdowns at all 3 reactors. As CNN reports:

 Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant experienced full meltdowns at three reactors in the wake of an earthquake and tsunami in March, the country’s Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters said Monday.

The nuclear group’s new evaluation, released Monday, goes further than previous statements in describing the extent of the damage caused by an earthquake and tsunami on March 11.

***

Reactors 1, 2 and 3 experienced a full meltdown, it said.

 

As the Japan Times reports today, the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency has “more than doubled its estimate of the radioactive material ejected into the air in the early days of the Fukushima nuclear crisis”.

Japan Times also notes that plutonium has been found in soil outside of the nuclear complex – about 1.7 kilometers from the front gate of Fukushima. However, the plutonium probably came from the so-called “hydrogen explosions”, which hopefully won’t happen again. (However, nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen believes that at least some of the explosions were caused by nuclear reactions in the fuel pools.)

While it is tempting to believe that the worst of the crisis is over, some of the reactors are more radioactive than ever, and nuclear chain reactions may still be occurring.

And it’s not just the reactors themselves.

Remember that – when the spent fuel rods stored onsite within the reactor buildings are included – the amount of radioactive fuel at Fukushima dwarfs Chernobyl.

What does this mean? 

More confirmation that lies are told by big companies.

The seriousness of the radiation levels has been, and probably still is being, understated or under estimated, or both. 

Solutions to stopping radiation into the air, sea and underground are not yet forthcoming.

The level and extent of the danger, not only to the Japanese people and their livelihoods, but to the rest of the world, is almost beyond assessment because there are too many variables and unknowns. Not only that, but the human element of covering up unsavory facts from the public is well established.

It suffices to say that the situation is of international importance, and is very grim. There is also the factor that this catastrophe has huge implications on the whole nuclear power industry situation, one because of the now-known dangers rather than the claimed safety of NPP’s, two, because the future of nuclear energy as a viable power source is no longer a straight-forward issue, if it ever was that.

Read the whole report here.
 

Related articles
Posted in ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, Human Behaviour, nuclear | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Floating Spider Webs

Posted on June 7, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

Sott.net have posted an explanation for the many sightings of floating webs in  Victoria, Australia.  Kelly Sammut,   Macedon Ranges Leader, provides the report.

Thousands of tiny threads floating on the winds across Sunbury prompted at least one call to the Australian UFO Research Network last week.

Australian garden orb weaver spider, after hav...

Image via Wikipedia

 And while the explanation may not be from another world it still has a creepy crawly factor.

According to Melbourne Museum, an explosion in golden and garden orb weaver spider populations has led to an increase in hatchlings taking to the wind on silken threads.

Whole post can be read here.

Related articles
Posted in House & Garden, Nature, outdoors | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Dangers of Fukushima Are Far From Over

Posted on June 5, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

Geiger-Müller radiation detector.

Image via Wikipedia

Arnie Gundersen Interview: The Dangers of Fukushima Are Worse and Longer-lived Than We Think  Reference Sott.net post 3 Jun 2011.

Transcript of Part 1 of interview with Arnie Gundersen conducted by Chris Martenson

Some extracts:

 Chris Martenson: So we have these four units and each of them has sort of had their own crisis and each of them has released contamination into the environment – first how much contamination really got released here? Second, we see that a bunch of it is headed into the ocean, although we’re still questioning I think how much and where it all is – so my question is around how much contamination is around these buildings at this point in time and what are the challenges and what happens when – not if – but when typhoon season comes up? Say, we had sort of a large bunch or kind of a storm, would that create issues? I am just trying to play out how much has been released, how much might be released, and what it actually implies at this point in time.

Arnie Gundersen: Well, this event is – I have said it’s worse than Chernobyl and I’ll stand by that. There was an enormous amount of radiation given out in the first two to three weeks of the event. And add the wind and blowing in-land. This could be – it could very well have brought the nation of Japan to its knees, I mean there is so much contamination that luckily wound up in the Pacific Ocean as compared to across the nation of Japan. It could have cut Japan in half. But now the winds have turned, so they are heading to the south toward Tokyo and now my concern and my advice to friends that if there is a severe aftershock and the Unit 4 building collapses, leave. We are well beyond where any science has ever gone at that point and nuclear fuel lying on the ground and getting hot is not a condition that anyone has ever analyzed.

So the plants, you will see them steaming and as summer goes on, you will see them steaming less, because the air is warmer, but it’s not because they are not steaming, you just don’t see it. Because this event occurred in March and it was cool there, so you will see the steam a lot easier. Those plants are still omitting a lot of radiation. Nowhere near as much as on the first two weeks, but a lot of radiation: cesium, strontium, and mainly cesium and strontium – those are going to head south, whether or not there is a tropical hurricane. The wind is going to push it south this time and so the issue is not the total radiation you might measure with a Geiger counter in your hand, but hot particles.

Chris Martenson: So what do they do, do you think?

Arnie Gundersen: I think they will be forced to build a building around the building and then, because you need heavy lifting cranes – cranes that lift a hundred and fifty tons, which are massive cranes, to put the put the nuclear fuel into canisters, which then can get removed. That is sort of what happened at TMI, but all of the fuel at TMI was still at the bottom of the vessel. But it was a three-year process to get the molten fuel out of Three Mile Island – four years actually. So the problem here is that all of the cranes that do that have been destroyed, at least on units 1, 3, and 4. And you can’t do it in the air. It has to be done under water. So my guess is that they will have to build a building around the building to provide enough shielding and water, so that they can then go in and put this fuel into a heavy lift canister.

 The complete transaction , including Part 2 can be reached here.

Chris Martenson’s website is here.

 

Related articles
Posted in ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, nuclear | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments